Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/officialreportofOOhyde 


OFFICIAL  REPORT 


OF  THE 

TRIAL 

OF 

'  A  \T  X  Y  HYDE, 


FOE  THE  MURDER  OF 


GEO.  W.  WATSON, 


ICLUDING  THE  TESTIMONY,  THE  ARGUMENTS  OF  COUNSEL,  AND 
THE  CHARGE  OF  THE  COURT,  REPORTED  VERBATIM. 

With  Portraits  of  the  Defendant  and  the  Deceased. 


FROM  THE  SHORT-HAND  NOTES  OF 

WILLIAM  HEMSTREET, 

OFFICIAL  REPORTER  OF  THE  COURT. 


J  R. 


NEW  YORK  : 

McDIVITT,  LAW  BOOKSELLER,  PUBLISHER  AND  IMPORTER, 


81  NTassaxx  street, 
1872. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy- two,  I 

J.  R.  McDIVITT, 

in  the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


Deller  &  Walrath  Printing  Co., 
Publishers  &  Law  Booksellers, 
122  Liberty  Street. 


i  l!  ' 


I  N  13  K  X. 

- »-(♦»-< - 


hranneling  Jury .  . 10 

Oaring  of  tlie  District  Attorney . .  . 13 

Anission  of  the  act,  &c . 17 

E|n  Curley . 17 

Recalled . 61,  87 

My  Ann  Kelley . 19 

Asr  Pixley . 19 

Recalled . 22 

Mgaret  Manie . 20 

NconJ.  Stowell  . 20 

Cn;.  C.  Woglom . 21 

Recalled . 85 

SECOND  DAY. 

Dr  Joseph  Creamer .  . 21 

PROSECUTION  RESTS. 

•'Icon  to  instruct  the  jury  to  find  for  defendant . 24 

Ar  meat  upon  . . . 24 

Moon  denied,  and  rulings . 25 

OPENING  FOR  THE  DEFENSE 

Hoird  Daisley . 38 

Jan  Thatcher . 43 

Ed'  n  Holloway . 43 

JolMarr . ;  . 43 

"  Recalled . . 59 


M  il  un  Newton . 44 

Ale  ndre  Amos . . 47 


8 


INDEX, 


THIRD  DAY. 

Sarah  Masr . 

Edward  Weaving . 

Isaac  P.  Maples . 

Kate  Lown . 

Sarah  Webb . 

Mary  Milford . 

Eliza  Jackson . 

Arthur  Thomas . 

Thomas  Whitaker . . 

Henry  Potts .  .  . 

Mary  Gleason . . 

Mary  Dexter . 

Recalled . 

Kate  Hanskaw . 

John  Dexter . 

Margaret  Hyde . 

Sarah  Windley . 

John  Windley . 

Fanny  Hyde,  Defendant .  ... 


FOURTH  DAY. 

Statement  of  District  Attorney  as  to  a  juror . 

Joseph  H.  Barclay  . 

Dr.  John  Byme . •* 

Recalled  . •'] 

Dr.  Charles  Correy . ■ 

* 

Recalled . 

Sergeant  Geo.  W.  Bunce .  . . . ! . .  . 

Thomas  Langan . .1 

Eliza  W.  Watson . Ji 

FIFTH  DAY. 

Lorenzo  D.  Tice . . .  •••  •  • 

Dr.  Thomas  Holmes .  . 

A.  P.  Bachman .  -ii 

Summing  up  for  the  Defense . 

Summing  up  by  District  Attorney .  . . 

Charge  of  the  Court  . 


APRIL  15,  1872. 


ft..  A.  B.  TAPPEN,  J.  C.  Presiding,  and  Associates,  Justices  of  the 
Peace  VOORHEES  and  JOHNSON. 


rhe  People  of  the  State  of  New  York 

against 

Fanny  Hyde. 


WINCHESTER  BRITTON,  District  Attorney. 

PEEL  D.  MORRIS,  PATRICK  READY,  I.  B.  CATLIN  and 
THOMAS  E.  PEARS  ALL,  for  the  Defence. 


h  BRITTON. — If  the  Court  please,  I  move 
c;e  of  the  People  against  Fanny  Hyde, 
h  des  seem  to  be  ready. 

'•lice  TAPPEN. — Are  you  ready  ? 
IrMORRIS. — Yes,  sir;  we  are  ready, 
h  30URT. — The  Clerk  will  call  a  jury, 
h  ollowing  were  accepted  in  the  manner  as 
ea:; 

J  PANELLING  THE  JURY. 

f '  ROUSS  called  and  prelimina- 
nt  administered. 

^ !r.  MORRIS. — Where  do  you  live?  A. 
a.  Street. 

hat  is  your  business?  A.  Dry  goods 
j  e  you  married  ?  A.  No. 

M  you  know  Geo.  W.  Watson,  the  de- 
d  A.  No,  sir. 

1  ve  you  heard  anything  about  the  case 
fy  Hyde,  charged  with  killing  George 
fnon,  on  the  26th  of  January  last?  A.  I 

I  ve  you  read  anything  about  it  ?  A.  I 

I  ve  you  heard  anything  of  the  case  ?  A. 

Hi  anybody  expressed  any  opinion  about 
S' n  your  hearing?  A.  Not  to  my  knowl- 

0v  king  have  you  been  in  business  in 

A-  Two  years- 

-1  iJ-iUJN.— Have  you  any  conscientious 


scruples  against  finding  a  verdict  of  guilty 
where  the  punishment  by  law  would  be  death  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Suppose  the  party  be  a  woman,  would 
that  make  any  difference  with  your  answer  ?  A 
No,  sir. 

The  Juror  was  accepted  as  satis  factorii,  and 
duly  sworn. 

TAPSC0TT  ““ 
ABf4^“Hs4LArwl”  'lo 

MetlS“  “  y“r  7  A-  ShiPPif! 

StoetYN“w&°f  "  A'  86  S'”lUl 

ma1ri^dre  ^  a  ““  °f  family?  A-  Am  not 
A  Qi  y0U  read  any  acc011nt  of  this  case  ? 

Q.  From  what  you  have  heard  or  read  have 
cusedA^  °-Pmi0n  °r  imPression  against  the  ac- 

Mr.  BRITTON. — That  is  hardly  a  proper 
question  on  challenge  for  principal  cause  P 

A  AjirT  7tU  f0rmed  0r  exPressed  any  opinion  ? 
A.  JNot  that  I  am  awmre  of.  1 

Q.  From  what  you  read 'did  you  form  or  ex¬ 
press  an  opinion  ?  A.  No,  I  have  not  formed 

iiVaSu01“C  time  a«°  siuce  I  read 
it.  I  have  forgotten  the  circumstances.  I  have 
no  present  opinion.  e 


10 


Q.  Have  you  heard  the  case  talked  of?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  At  the  time  that  you  read  about  the  case 
did  you  lomi  any  opinion  or  impression  ? 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  object  to 'that  question  on 
challenge  for  principal  cause. 

The  COURT. — All  that  may  go  to  your  sub¬ 
sequent  challenge  to  the  favor.  Your  present 
question  is  confined  to  challenge  for  principal 
cause. 

Mr.  MORRIS.— At  the  time  you  read  of  this 
transaction  did  it  make  any  impression  on  your 
mind  -with  reference  to  the  case  one  way  or  the 
other — not  what  that  impression  was,  but  did 
it  make  any  impression  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Has  anything  occurred  since  that  event  to 
change  that  impression  ?  A.  I  formed  no  opin¬ 
ion  ;  but  I  had  an  impression  it  was  a  very  sad 
affair.  In  fact  I  have  almost  forgotten. 

Q.  Has  anything  occurred  to  change  the  im¬ 
pression  you  formed  at  that  tune?  A.  None 
whatever. 

Q.  You  have  a  present  impression  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  case  ?  A.  None  on  the  merits  of  the 
case.  I  have  an  impression  what  it  was.  I  have 
not  followed  the  ease  through  the  papers.  I 
merely  read  an  account  of  it  on  one  occasion. 

Q.  Do  you  distinguish  between  an  impression 
and  an  opinion?  A.  As  to  which  party  was  at 
fault,  I  have  formed  no  opinion  with  regard  to 
that. 

Q.  Have  you  formed  any  impression  on  that 
subject  at  all  as  to  whether  there  was  any  fault 
in  any  one  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  have. 

Q.  Can  you  say  whether  you  have  or  not — 
have  you  formed  any  impression  with  reference 
to  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  any  one  was 
to  blame  ?  A.  I  imagine  I  have. 

Q.  You  have  that  impression  still  ?  A.  I  have 
an  impression  that  some  one  was  to  blame. 

Q.  And  it  would  require  some  evidence  to  re¬ 
move  that  impression  ?  A.  Certainly  it  would. 

Mr.  BRITTON.— Have  you  formed  any  im¬ 
pression  whatever  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence 
of  the  prisoner  ?  A.  None  whatever. 

Q.  All  the  impression  you  formed  was  that 
some  one  must  have  been  to  blame;  as  to  who 
that  person  is  you  have  not  formed  any  impres¬ 
sion  ?  A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  That  impression  is  a  mere  general  impres¬ 
sion?  A.  It  is  a  general  impression;  when  we 
read  anything  of  the  kind — 

Q.  Of  an  occurrence  of  that  kind,  that  some¬ 
body  is  wrong  ?  A.  Exactly. 

Q‘.  But  as  to  who  it  was  you  have  no  impres¬ 
sion?  A.  None  whatever. 

The  COURT. — Are  you  laboring  under  any 
bias  or  prejudice  for  or  against  the  prisoner? 
A.  None  whatever. 

Q.  Could  you  enter  into  the  jury  box  and 
there  try  the  case  and  render  a  verdict  according 
to  the  evidence  as  though  you  never  had  heard 
of  it  ?  A.  Yes,  sir-. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — All  men  who  have  prejudice 
or  bias  imagine  they  have  none;  and  the  strong¬ 
er  the  prejudice  the  more  unprejudiced  they 
think  they  are.  He  says  he  has  an  impression, 
and  that  impression  relates  to  the  precise  ques¬ 
tion  at  issue.  A  gentleman  saying  he  has  no 
prejudice  on  the  subject  does  not  remove  the 


disqualification  or  difficulty.  We  want  jui 
whose  minds  are  free;  who  don’t  go  into 
jury  box  with  an  impression  formed  as  to 
veryr  subject  we  are  to  try. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — The  subject  to  try  is  win 
er  this  defendant  is  guilty,  as  charged  in  the 
dictment.  of  the  crime  of  murder.  This  ji 
says  he  has  formed  no  impression  as  to  the  g 
or  innocence  of  this  party  charged.  That  is 
point  we  are  here  to  try ;  no  other  point  is  bel 
this  court  but  that,  and  that  he  distinctly  sti 
he  has  not  formed  any  impression  about 
says  what  no  man  could  help  saying  who  kn< 
that  somebody  has  been  guilty  of  violence.  * ' 
assumption  of  any  intelligent  man  would 
that  somebody  was  to  blame;  that  is  a  gen 
impression,  growing  out  of  the  fact  that  tl 
has  been  a  death  by  violence.  Any  rule 
eluding  on  that  ground,  if  adopted,  woulc 
elude  any  juror  of  any  intelligence  who 
heard  this  man  was  killed. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — But  there  is  no  other  pe 
charged  with  this  than  the  prisoner  no\n 
trial.  When  he  says  he  has  an  impression  s . 
one. was  to  blame,  he  has  reference  to  the  ‘ 
oner  on  trial. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — It  maybe  the  accused,  i 
very  nature  of  the  defense  is  that  the  elect » 
was  to  blame.  He  only  got  an  impression  o 
it  was  a  sad  affair ;  that  somebody  was  to  bl « 

Mr.  i  OR  R  IS.  — If  either  one,  it  would  eq  1; 
disqualify  him. 

The  COURT. — The  Court  comes  to  the  n 
elusion  that  the  juror  has  not  disqualified  Ji 
self  in  either  of  his  answers.  Your  dial  gi 
to  the  favor  is  not  sustained. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — Have  you  any  conscier  >u 
scruples  against  finding  a  verdict  of  }  ltj 
where  the  punishment  for  the  offense  won  h 
death?  A.  I  have  no  conscientious  sciJ* 
against  finding  a  verdict,  having  been  swe  ai 
a  juror. 

Q,  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  your  mind  in 
such  a  condition  that  you  would  find  a  v  lid 
if  the  testimony  led  to  that  conclusion  ii  c® 
mind,  under  the  rules  of  law?  A.  I  iniglp™ 
a  verdict  of  guilty;  that’s  what  I  mean  tgjH 

Q.  Suppose  the  penalty  of  the  law  oi  om 
verdict  would  be  death  ;  the  question  is  w  tlw 
you  have  any  scruples  such  as  would  pent 
your  giving  a  verdict  of  guilty  on  the  testify? 
A.  I  have  conscientious  scruples. 

The  COURT.— Against  rendering  a  did 
of  guilty  in  a  capital  case,  where  the  tesuoaj; 
warrants  it  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MORRIS.- Your  opinion  is  inor"m 
reference  to  the  policy  of  the  law  than  ftiMJ 
else.  Now,  if  you  were  sworn  as  a  juroi  WJf 
not  you  render  a  verdict  according  to  t’H 
deuce  in  the  case?  A.  I  should  feel  boidfl 
do  that. 

Q.  You  would  want  clear  evidence  bef*  ra 
dering  a  verdict  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  If  you  were  sworn  as  a  juror  do-  J® 
think  you  could  render  a  verdict  aecorfcWj 
the  evidence,  uninfluenced  by  any  opinh  yj( 
might  have  with  reference  to  the  policy!  1 
law  ?  A.  I  have  never  served  on  a  jury1 
life,  and  know  nothing  about  it,  but  I  Pj 
could  render  a  verdict  of  guilty  if  I  wt  sm 


11 


ed  in  my  mind  it 'was  correct— that  the  party 
■as  guilty.  I  do  not  know  that  I  would  have 
ay  scruples. 

The  COURT. — The  Court  say  he  qualifies 
imself  as  a  juror. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — Suppose  the  party  on  trial 
i  be  affected  by  your  verdict  was  a  woman, 
ould  that  make  any  difference  as  to  your  scru¬ 
bs  ?  Could  you  still  render  such  a  verdict  as 
Ascribed.  A.  I  think  so. 

The  juror  was  accepted  and  sworn. 

MARTIN  J.  COOLEY  called  and  sworn 
:r  challenge.  For  principal  cause  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  live?  A.  515  Henry  street. 
Q.  What  is  your  business  ?  A.  Merchant. 

Q.  Are  you  a  man  of  family  ?  A.  Yes. 


Challenge  for  principal  cause  withdrawn ,  and 
allenqe  to  the  far  or  : 

3-  Have  you  any  feeling  of  prejudice  or  im- 
ipsions  against  the  accused  that  would  inter- 
iewith  your  rendering  an  impartial  verdict  ? 
t  No,  sir  ;  I  don’t  think  I  have. 


'challenge  withdrawn. 

dr.  BRITTON. — For  principal  cause  : 

1-  Did  you  read  an  account  of  this  killing  at 
tl  time  it  occurred?  A.  I  did  read  an  account 
o  it,  but  it  passed  out  of  my  mind. 

I-  The  facts  having  passed  out  of  your  mind, 
at/ou  say,  did  you  then  form  an  opinion  or 
h  iression  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
ac'rsed?  A.  I  presume  I  did  form  an  opinion 
aljhat  time. 

Do  you  know  whether  you  did  or  not.  A. 
I  )  not  now. 

.  Have  you  any  opinion  now  as  to  the  guilt 
oiunocence  of’  the  prisoner,  charged  with  this 
offise  ?  A.  No. 


.  Have  you  any  conscientious  scruples 
agnst  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty  where  the 
tei  mony  warrants  it,  although  the  punishment 
is  eath?  A.  I  never  served  as  a  juror  in  such 
a  fie. 

restion  repeated  by  the  Court.  A.  I  cannot 
sa;[  have. 

j  Is  your  mind  entirely  free  and  unbiased 
on  lat  point  ?  A.  As  I  feel  now  I  sliouldjdis- 
llli  to.  ■“ 

ie  COURT. — On  the  question  of  conscien- 
uo,  scruples  the  statute  exempts  you  if  you 

1 .  H  is  addressed  to  your  conscience.  The 
HU',  ion  is  whether,  when  the  evidence  war- 
1  an  the  verdict,  have  you  conscientious  scruples 
"gUst  performing  that  duty.  A.  As  I  feel  now 
1  h  e  some  ieeling  in  that  direction.  I  do  not 
,  f  I  have  any  conscientious  scruples, 
nit  have  always  had  the  feeling  that  such  a 
‘  er  ct  would  be  distasteful  to  me. 

^  Do  you  mean  to  say  you  would  be 
"vei  to  rendering  such  a  verdict  if  the  evi- 
aen  warranted?  A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  mean 
to  s|  that  emphatically. 

Q  How  far  do  you  mean  to  say  it  ?  A.  I 
mea  to  say  I  prefer  not  being  a  juror. 

V  Suppose  the  .  evidence  was  such  that 
ft™  satisfied  in  your  own  mind,  under 
lies  of  law  the  prisoner  was  guilty  of 
ense  charged,  would  your  mind  then  be 


the 

the 


in  such  a  condition  on  that  subject  that  you 
would  hesitate  to  find  a  verdict  of  guilty?  A. 
No,  sir  ;  I  don’t  think  I  would. 

Q.  Suppose  the  prisoner  to  be  a  woman  ?  A. 
I  don’t  think  the  prisoner  being  a  woman  would 
make  any  difference. 

Q.  Well,  you  think  if  you  were  sworn  as  a 
juror  to  try  this  ease  that  your  mind  on  capital 
punishment  is  so  unbiased  that  you  can  try  the 
case  on  the  evidence  and  render  a  verdict  ac¬ 
cordingly  ? 

Mr.  MORRIS.-  I  submit  the  juror  has  fully 
answered. 

The  COURT.  —  The  question  is  ruled  in. 

Q.  It  you  were  to  be  sworn  as  a  juror  on  this 
case,  is  your  mind  so  free  on  the  subject  of  con¬ 
scientious  scruples  as  to  render  a  verdict  in  a 
capital  case  according  to  the  testimony  in  the 
case  ?  A.  I  think  I  could. 

The  juror  was  accepted  and  duly  sworn. 

CHARLES  R.  BLOOMER  called  and  sworn 
to  challenge. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live?  A.  61  Devoe  street, 
Eastern  District. 

Q.  What  is  your  business?  A.  Sash  and 
blind  factory. 

Q.  Are  you  a  married  man.  A.  Yes. 

Challenge  to  the  favor. 

Q.  Have  you  any  feeling  or  prejudice  that 
would  prevent  you  from  rendering  a  fail-  verdict 
in  this  case  according  to  the  evidence,  and  an 
impartial  verdict  so  far  as  the  accused  is  con¬ 
cerned  ? 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  object  to  the  latter  clause 
of  the  question.  I  don’t  think  it  competent  for 
the  counsel  on  the  other  side  to  ask  questions 
which  the  answer  to  calls  for  the  nature  of  the 
bias.  This  question  calls  for  the  bias  so  far  as 
the  prisoner  is  concerned. 

The  COURT. — Whether  he  can  render  a 
fair  verdict  ?  Limit  the  question  to  that. 

Mr.  MORRIS.  —I  suppose  we  can  go  farther 
than  that  in  challenge  to  the  favor.  The  ques¬ 
tion,  as  far  as  we  are  concerned,  is  whether  the 
juror  has  a  bias  against  the  prisoner. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — The  rale  of  both  principal 
cause  and  favor  is  as  to  whether  the  juror  is 
biased.  I  don’t  understand  in  either  case  the 
party  may  ask  a  question  which  calls  for  the  ex¬ 
pression  of  the  nature  of  the  bias,  if  it  exists, 
but  only  to  ascertain  if  there  is  a  bias.  First, 
whether  there  is  a  legal  bias,  and,  second,  where 
the  bias  lies.  In  challenging  for  principal  cause 
nobody  ever  thought  of  allowing  a  question  of 
that  nature. 

The  COURT. — This  is  a  challenge  to  the 
favor  ? 

Mr.  BRITTON. — Yes.  Thej  way  I  under¬ 
stand  it  is ;  there  is  no  difference  between 
principal  cause  and  favor,  except  in  one  case  ; 
the  law  says  the  juror  is  disqualified  ;  in  the 
other  case  it  is  a  question  of  fact  whether  there 
is  any  such  bias  ;  but  because  it  is  for  the  favor 
the  question  is  not  whether  it  is  favorable  to  or 
against  the  accused,  whether  to  or  against  the 
people. 

Mr.  MORRIS.— Suppose  the  juror  expresses 


12 


an  opinion  against  the  party,  would  not  we  be 
at  liberty7  to  prove  that  as  challenge  to  the 
favor  ?  I  have  a  right  to  ask  him  anything  that 
goes  to  that  question. 

Mr.  BRITTON.—  Counsel  has  a  right  to  ask 
him  whether  he  has  an  opinion  ;  and  if  he  says 
he  has  not,  it  follows  then  that  is  the  end  of  it ; 
if  he  says  he  has,  it  matters  not  in  whose  favor. 

The  COURT. — Let  the  question  be  an¬ 
swered. 

Mr.  MORRIS.— Have  you  any  bias  or  impres¬ 
sion,  so  far  as  the  accused  is  concerned,  that 
would  prevent  you  from  rendering  an  impartial 
verdict?  A.  No,  sir. 

Challenge  withdrawn. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — Did  you  read  an  account  of 
this  about  that  period  ?  A.  I  cannot  tell. 

Q.  You  don’t  remember  V  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  anybody  talk  about 
this  case?  A.  I  have. 

Q.  How  often  have  you  had  conversation  or 
heard  anybody  talk  about  it?  A.  Never  but 
once,  and"  that  between  myself  and  wife. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  express  an  opinion  as  to  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner  ?  A.  I  do 
not  know  that  I  have. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  opinion?  A.  I  don’t 
think  I  did. 

Q.  Have  you  any7  now  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  bias  or  prejudice  in  favor 
of  the  prisoner,  which  would  prevent  your  ren¬ 
dering  a  verdict  against  her,  if  the  evidence 
warranted  it  ?  A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  scruples  which 
would  prevent  your  rendering  a  verdict  ot  guilty 
if  the  evidence  warranted  it,  where  the  punish¬ 
ment  following  the  judgment  would  be  death  ? 
A.  I  don’t  understand  that  question. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  scruples 
which  would  prevent  your  rendering  a  verdict 
of  guilty  in  this  case,  this  defendant  being  a 
female,  if  the  evidence  warranted  it,  the  penalty 
being  death?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  scruples  on 
the  subject  of  capital  punishment?  A.  No,  sir. 

Juror  accepted  and  sworn. 

JOHN  B.  CREGIR  called  and  sworn  for 
challenge. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside?  A.  244  Rutger 
street. 

Q.  Are  you  a  married  man  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q  Have  you  read  any  account  of  this  case? 
A.  I  read  an  account  at  the  time  of  the  occur¬ 
rence. 

Q.  Have  you  read  nothing  since?  A.  Noth¬ 
ing  of  any  consequence. 

Challenge  lo  the  favor. 

Q.  Have  you  any  bias,  prejudice  or  impres¬ 
sions  against  the  accused  that  would  interfere 
with  or  prevent  your  rendering  a  verdict  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  evidence  ? 

Mr.  BRITTON.  -  Does  the  ruling  of  the  Court 
in  the  other  case  go  so  far  as  this  ? 

The  COURT  — Put  your  question  in  the  form 
of  the  other  question  and  it  will  be  ruled  in. 
A.  I  have  an  opinion. 

Q.  You  have  no  such  opinion  or  prejudice  as 


to  interfere  writh  your  rendering  a  verdict  on  tl 
evidence?  A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  BRITTON.— Have  you  any  feeling  c 
prejudice  in  favor  of  the  accused  to  prevei 
your  rendering  a  verdict  according  to  the  test 
mony?  A.  No. 

Q.'  No  bias  in  your  mind  one  way  nor  tl 
other?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q  No  conscientious  scruples  against  rendei 
ing  a  verdict  of  guilty  where  the  punishment  i 
death  ?  A.  I  have  not. 

Challenge  withdrawn. 

Mr.  MORRIS.— Are  you  acquainted  wit 
either  of  the  parties?  A.  Not  at  all. 

Juror  accepted  and  sworn. 

HENRY  HEWITT  called  and  sworn  to  cha 
lenge. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live?  A.  295  Eighteen- 
Street. 

Q  What  is  your  business  ?  A. 

Q.  Are  you  a  married  man  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  read  any  account  of  this  transf 
tion?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Have  you  read  anything  since  ?  A  ho. 

Q.  (To  the  favor)— Have  you  any  opimc 
impression  or  feeling  so  far  as  the  accused 
concerned  that  would  interfere  with  or  previ 
your  rendering  an  impartial  verdict  according 
the  evidence?  A.  No,  sir. 

Challenge  withdraxcn. 

By  Mr.  BRITTON.— Did  you  form  an  op 
ion  when  you  read  the  account?  A.  All  I 
opinion  I  formed  or  expressed  I  could  not  m  ■ 
up  my  mind  whether  she  was  guilty  or  innoci 

Q  'Have  you  any  conscientious  scrap 
against  finding  a  verdict  of  guilty  in  a  cap 
case  where  the  evidence  warrants  it?  A  ij 
sir. 

Juror  accepted  and  sworn. 


CARREN  C.  CURTIS  called  and  sworn  r 

challenge.  _ _ _  _ 

Q.  Where  do  you  live  ?  A.  2<0  Henry  stit, 

business  is  plumbing. 

Q.  Are  you  a  man  of  family  ?  A.  I  am. 

Q.  Have  you  any  feeling  or  impression,  &■» 
as  the  accused  is  concerned,  that  would  rw 
fere  with  your  rendering  a  verdict  accordn  » 
the  evidence?  A.  I  have  not. 


Challenge  withdrawn. 

Mr.  BRITTON.— Did  I  understand  y< 
say  you  did  read  an  account  ?  A.  I  rq  •, 
general  account,  but  not  in  detail. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  form  any  opinion 
subject  of  the  guilt  or  innocence?  A  ho. 

Q.  Is  your  mind  unbiased?  A.  1  thin*  * 
Q.  Not  prejudiced  for  nor  against?  A.  b| 
Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  sci» 
against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty  if  uiffi 
deuce  warrants  it  ?  A.  I  have  nob 
Juror  accepted  and  sworn. 


HUGH  ALLEN  called  and  sworn  foil 

Q.  Where  do  you  live?  A.  89  Harris" 
Q.  What  is  your  business?  A.  rau 
lerchant.  „ 

Q.  You  are  a  man  of  family?  A.  leb. 


13 


Q.  Have  you  any  opinion  or  impression 
gainst  the  accused  that  would  prevent  you 
om  rendering  an  impartial  verdict  according 
)  the  evidence  ?  A.  I  have  none. 

Challenge  withdrawn. 

Mr.  BRITTON.— Have  you  any  opinion  or 
ias  in  favor  of  the  accused  which  would  pre- 
ait  you  rendering  an  impartial  verdict,  accord- 
ig  to  the  evidence  ?  A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  scruples 
;ainst  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty  where  the 
inishment  is  death  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  either  of  these 
ixties?  A.  No,  sir. 

Juror  accepted  and  sworn. 

JAMES  M.  ROWAN  called  and  sworn  for 
allenge  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  live  ?  A.  555  Pacific  street. 
Q.  Your  business  ?  A.  Nothing  at  present. 

Q.  Have  you  any  impression  or  prejudice,  so 
•  as  the  prisoner  is  concerned,  that  would  in- 
Here  with  your  rendering  a  verdict  according 
I  the  evidence?  A.  I  have  no  prejudice 
;ainst  the  prisoner. 

Challenge  withdrawn. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — Have  you  any  conscientious 
tuples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty 
f  ere  the  penalty  is  death  ?  A.  I  have  not. 

Juror  accepted  and  sworn. 
rACOB  H.  BROWN  called  and  sworn  to 
j.llenge  : 

%  Where  do  you  live  ?  A.  212  Wilson  street, 
j.  What  is  your  business  ?  A.  Stationer, 
SY. 

|.  Man  of  family  ?  A.  Yes. 

(.  Have  you  any  prejudice  or  impression  so 
?£  as  the  defendant  is  concerned,  that  would 
ivent  you  rendering  a  verdict  on  the  evi- 
i|  ce  ?  A.  I  have  not. 

I  Did  you  read  an  account  of  this  transac- 
1  ?  A.  Some  slight  ;  not  much. 

,.  Did  you  hear  it  talked  about?  A.  Not 
ih. 

.  You  did  not  form  any  opinion  with  ref¬ 
ugee  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused  ? 

INo. 

.  Have  you  any  impression  on  that  sub- 
ei?  A.  No,  sir. 

^  No  impression  in  favor  of  the  prisoner? 

Nor  against?  A.  No. 

Have  you  any  conscientious  scruples 
©'  ist  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty  where  the 
>e:  lty  is  death  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

<  ror  accepted  and  sworn. 

pHN  R.  DAYTON  called  and  sworn  for 
hijenge. 

*  Where  do  you  live?  A.  356  Schermer- 
loi  Street. 

t  Business?  A.  Cotton. 

(  Family?  A.  Yes. 

(  Have  you  any  impression  or  prejudice,  so 
ar  :  the  accused  is  concerned,  that  would  in- 
er>e  with  your  rendering  an  impartial  verdict 
>n  e  evidence  ?  A.  I  have  not. 


( illenge  withdrawn. 


Mr.  BRITTON.  —  Have  you  any  conscien¬ 
tious  scruples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of 
guilty  where  the  offence  is  punishable  with 
death  ?  A.  While  the  law  remains  the  same,  I 
have  none. 

Juror  accepted  and  sworn. 

ALFRED  ARMSTRONG-  called  and  sworn 
for  challenge. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live  ?  A.  247  South  North 
Street,  Williamsburgh. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  either  of  the 
parties?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Your  business  ?  A.  Mason. 

Q.  Have  you  a  family?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  read  an  account  of  this  transac¬ 
tion  ?  A.  No,  sir,  not  a  word. 

Q.  Have  you  talked  with  any  person  on  the 
subject?  A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — Have  you  any  conscientious 
scruples  as  to  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty 
where  the  offence  is  punishable  with  death  ?  A. 
Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Have  you  any  feeling  or  prejudice  in  favor 
of  the  prisoner  in  this  case?  A.  No,  sir. 

Juror  accepted  and  sworn. 

[The  foregoing  relates  to  the  examination  of 
the  jurors  accepted.  During  the  empanelling 
of  the  Jury,  the  People  challenged  peremptorily 
four  jurors,  and  the  prisoner  nine.] 

The  panel  being  full,  the  Court  instructed 
them  that  on  their  separating  during  the  trial 
they  should  hold  no  converse  in  the  case,  and 
then  ordered  a  recess. 


- - 

OPENING  ON  THE  PART  OF 
THE  PROSECUTION. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — If  the  Court  please, 
and  gentlemen  of  the  jury  : — 

My  duty  in  this  case  is  a  simple  one,  and 
it  will  be,  as  it  should  be  in  my  judgment, 
confined  to  a  mere  statement  of  facts 
which  the  people  expect  to  prove  in  this 
case,  stating  the  offense  and  its  nature, 
which  it  is  claimed  has  been  committed. 

At  the  corner  of  First  and  South 
Eleventh  streets,  in  this  city,  in  the  East¬ 
ern  District,  is  a  manufactory.  That 
building  is  occupied  by  various  persons. 
It  is  a  place  where  motive  or  manufactur¬ 
ing  power  is  rented  on  the  several  floors.  At 
the  time  of  this  occurrence,  the  door  which 
led  to  the  factory  was  on  South  Eleventh 
street.  On  the  third  floor  of  the  build¬ 
ing,  which  was  divided  into  several  rooms, 
was  a  room  occupied  by  Mr.  Watson,  the 


14 


deceased,  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing 
hair  nets.  In  his  employment  was  a  fore¬ 
woman  of  the  establishment — who  is*the 
person  on  trial  here — and  four  otherpersons 
were  likewise  employed  there  at  that  time. 
This  was  the  third  story,  as  I  have  stated 
to  you.  The  second  floor  was  also  used 
for  various  manufacturing  establishments 
— one,  two,  or  three,  as  the  case  may  be — 
occupied  for  manufacturing  purposes  by 
other  persons.  The  stairs,  wh  ch  were  the 
mode  of  exit  from  this  building  to  South 
Eleventh  street,  were  narrow  and  steep — 
there  were  two  flights — one  leading  to  the 
second,  the  other  to  the  third  story.  The 
stairs  down  from  the  third  story  led  to  a 
little  passage  or  floor;  you  walk  around 
this  and  reach  the  head  of  the  other  flight 
— the  one  flight  being  directly  over  the 
other.  During  the  course  of  the  trial  a 
diagram  will  be  exhibited  to  you  which 
will  give  you  a  clearer  idea  than  I  can  of 
the  premises,  so  far  as  the  stairs  are  con¬ 
cerned. 

On  the  26th  day  of  January  last,  a  little 
before  twelve  o’clock  of  that  day,  there 
was  working  in  that  room  the  defendant — 
who  is  a  married  woman,  the  deceased, 
who  was  the  proprietor  of  the  premises — 
a  married  man, — and  three  other  females 
and  one  man,  if  I  remember  aright.  At 
about  ten  minutes  before  twelve, — some¬ 
time  between  ten  minutes  and  three  min¬ 
utes  before  twelve, — Mr.  Watson,  the  de¬ 
ceased,  as  was  his  custom,  put  on  his  over¬ 
coat  and  started  to  go  to  lunch  or  dinner. 
It  was  the  custom  at  that  establishment,  as 
at  many  others,  to  blow  the  whistle  or 
ring  the  bell  at  twelve  o’clock,  and  it  was 
Mr.  Watson’s  custom  to  leave  the  premises 
at  a  few  minutes  before  twelve  for  tbe  pur¬ 
pose  of  going  to  his  dinner.  On  that  day, 
in  accordance  with  such  usual  custom,  he 
put  on  a  light  overcoat — light  in  texture, 
not  color — and  started  out  of  that  room  to 
go  down  stairs.  Just  before  he  left,  which 
was  three  or  four  minutes  before  twelve,  as 
near  as  I  can  ascertain,  the  defendant  left 
this  room  and  went  out  of  that  door. 
Where  she  was  in  the  intermediate  time 
perhaps  the  testimony  will  develop.  I  am 


not  able  now  to  state.  It  was  a  few  mi 
utes  at  best.  As  he  started  to  go  dot 
those  stairs,  so  far  as  we  are  able  to  jud 
from  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  he  w 
shot.  There  is  a  hole  through  the  windo 
Whether  this  was  caused  by  this  prison 
at  the  time,  the  trial  may  develop.  At  ai 
rate  Mr.  Watson  was  shot  by  a  ball  whi 
passed  through  his  coat  collar,  struck  1 
neck  below  the  ear,  and  penetrated  t 
head  and  brain  so  far  as  almost  to  rea 
the  skull  at  the  upper  portion.  Of  cou 
this  caused  his  death.  The  circumstam 
seem  to  show  that  he  was  shot  when  he  i 
pretty  well  up  stairs,  and  steep  as  ti 
were,  and  lined  with  iron  as  they  were, 
rolled  down  these  stairs,  and  when  fj 
discovered  by  another  than  the  person  v  • 
committed  the  deed,  he  lay  at  the  foot  i 
the  stairs  with  his  feet  on  the  steps  i( 
head  and  shoulders  on  the  floor.  A  yot ; 
girl  who  was  tlmn  working  at  the  facte , 
and  was  accustomed  to  go  out  to  gt  a 
lunch  at  about  this  time,  and  bring  it  i ) 
the  premises  to  eat,  left  a  few  minutes  v 
fore  Watson  left.  She  went  about  a  b  k 
and  a  half,  bought  the  material  for  4 
lunch,  immediately  returned,  occupyii  » 
time  not  to  exceed  five  minutes.  On  a 
return  she  first  discovered  Mr.  Wa  a 
lying  in  the  condition  I  have  descri  tb 
At  that  time  this  defendant  was  there, 
her  attention  being  called  to  this  by  a  r- 
cumstance  connected  with  the  condui  (I 
the  defendant,  she  immediately  raw 
into  the  room  below  and  gave  the  ala. 
Afterwards  she  rushed  up  stairs  consi 
bly  excited.  Others  came  out  of  the:* 
beloA,  who  will  be  examined  here,  tfl 
found  Mr.  Watson  in  the  conditic  is 
which  I  have  described,  the  head  'm 
down  and  the  face  up.  The  first  suii# 
was  that  he  had  fallen  down  stairs,  bi  <4 
examination  it  was  discovered  that  tbdk 
bullet  had  sped  its  way  to  his  death, 
was  on  the  floor  and  steps,  and  altiJg 
he  was  then  breathing,  he  soon  died. 

Now,  gentlemen,  about  ten  days  tit 
weeks — I  do  not  know  the  precise 
the  testimony  will  show — before  thjj 
currence,  this  defendant,  with  a  yol 


15 


ther,  went  to  a  gunsmith’s  in  this  city 
i  purchased  a  pistol.  On  examining  it, 
h  a  view  to  purchasing  it,  the  question 
{  asked  this  defendant,  by  her  brother, 
jsther  that  would  suit  her.  She  assented, 
j  pistol  was  purchased  and  they  went 
,y  with  it.  Afterwards,  and  before  this 
=th,  the  brother  again  called  at  this 
he  and  desired  to  exchange,  complain- 
i  or  stating  he  did  not  know  how  to  use 
,and  on  its  being  explained  by  the 
Li  ufacturer  in  what  manner  it  could  be 
3  L,  he  went  away  satisfied.  That  was 
v  or  three  days  before  this  unfortunate 
slirrence.  That  pistol  had  on  it  a  mark, 
o'of  the  manufacturer,  but  a  peculiarity 
l  is  make  which  enabled  the  manufactu- 
ajjo  identify  it  at  the  coroner’s  inquest. 

:  ort  time  after  the  killing,  two  or  three 
u  s  afterwards,  this  defendant,  with  her 
Uiiand  and  brother,  went  to  the  Fifth 
rtinct  police  station,  and  brought  with 
ifi  this  pistol  which  I  have  described  to 
ai  and  surrendered  it,  and  on  a  state- 
ici  of  the  occurrences,  this  defendant 
mndered  herself  into  custody.  Now 
o  these  facts  arise  this  trial. 

Iwould  seem  that  the  facts,  as  I  have 
ad  them  to  you,  would  constitute  a 
la:  case.  Well,  add  to  what  I  have 
rtdy  stated,  that  the  brother  came  out 
oa  the  room  below  at  the  time  of  this 
aw.  being  given  by  this  young  girl,  step- 
d, cross  the  dead  body  of  this  man,  the 
ifi  dant  being  still  there,  and,  showing 
it  emotion,  said  to  her,  “  Fanny,  I  told 
>u|ot  to  do  this,”  to  which  she  made  no 
pi.  Now,  gentlemen,  in  stating  these 
-'tin  a  simple  way,  I  have  given  all 
eiis  to  this  transaction,  so  far  as  the 
loJedge  of  the  prosecution  goes.  It  be- 
im  us  then,  if  these  facts  should  be 
la  isbed,  as  we  are  not  all  supposed  to  be 
peenced  in  the  criminal  law,  to  see 
ia  find  of  an  offence  this  is. 
its  not  all  killing  that  is  murder,  as 
u  1  readily  understand.  In  this  State 
mure  two  degrees  of  murder — first  and 
-o:  L  There  are,  likewise,  resulting  from 
In ,  certain  degrees  of  manslaughter, 
acis  an  offence,  as  you  all  know,  less 


in  enormity  than  murder.  There  is  like¬ 
wise  known  to  the  law,  justifiable  homicide 
and  excusable  homicide,  wherein  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  of  the  killing  are  of  such  a 
nature  that  the  party  who  commits  it  is 
not  held  to  be  guilty  of  any  offence.  We 
have  a  statute  on  the  subject  of  murder, 
and  in  order  to  have  a  fair  understanding 
of  that  statute,  it  is  proposed  to  look  and 
see  what  murder  is  at  common  law  ;  and  I 
propose  to  comment  on  this  because  you 
are  unbiased  and  unprejudiced  men,  be¬ 
tween  the  people  and  the  defendants,  and 
desire  to  know  the  principles  upon  which 
you  are  to  try  the  case.  Murder  at  com¬ 
mon  law  is  defined  thus  : 

“  Murder. — Where  a  person  of  sound  memory 
and  discretion  unlawfully  kills  any  responsible 
creature  in  the  commonwealth,  with  malice 
prepense  —  (aforethought)  —  either  express  or 
implied.  ” 

There  are  some  words  used  in  that  defini¬ 
tion  which  have  acquired,  from  long  expe¬ 
rience  and  numerous  decisions,  a  definite, 
technical  meaning,  by  which  juries,  courts 
and  counsel  are  bound.  For  instance, 
“Sound  memory  and  discretion. ”  Of 
course  you  understand  by  that  that  the 
person  must  be  a  responsible  being,  and 
that  he  must  not  be  laboring  under  such  a 
disease  as  to  impair  his  moral  or  mental 
faculties.  If  one  is  an  irresponsible  being, 
or  under  some  hallucination,  or  under 
some  disease  which  renders  him  irrespon¬ 
sible  for  his  acts,  of  course  it  would  be 
palpable  injustice  to  punish  him.  “  With 
malice  prepense.”  The  common  sig¬ 
nificance  of  malice  is  some  ill-will  against 
the  person.  In  common  parlance,  if  you 
speak  of  a  person  having  malice  prepense, 
it  would  be  conveyed  to  your  mind  that 
there  had  been  some  special  ill-will  against 
that  person.  But  malice  in  law  is  not 
necessarily  that.  Malice  in  law  is  defined 
to  be  a  wrongful  act,  done  intentionally, 
without  just  cause  or  excuse.  If  a  person 
should  gr  into  a  crowd  and  shoot  into  it, 
and  kill  any  person  there,  you  coirld  not 
say  in  common  parlance  that  the  person 
had  malice  against  the  person  who  was 
hit;  but  it  is  malice  in  law,  because  it 
shows  such  a  disposition  of  depravity  as 


16 


the  law  would  imply  there  was  malice, 
whether  there  was  especial  personal  malice 
or  not. 

Now  the  statute  defines  murder  in  the 
first  degree  to  be  the  killing  of  a  human 
being  from  premeditated  design  to  effect 
the  death  of  the  person  killed,  or  of  any 
human  being.  That  premeditated  design 
might  be  a  design  formed  on  the  instant 
of  killing,  or  auticipated  for  a  longer  pe¬ 
riod,  but  if  intended  before  or  at  the  time 
to  produce  death,  then  it  is  premeditated 
in  the  eye  of  the  law.  It  don’t  require 
any  long-conceived  purpose.  Whether 
any  such  question  will  arise  in  this  case  I 
am  not  able  to  say.  There  are  other  defini¬ 
tions,  but  it  is  not  probable  they  will  arise 
in  this  case.  I  do  not  deem  it  proper  to 
confuse  your  minds  by  farther  definitions. 
I  do  not  read  the  definition  of  murder  in 
the  second  degree  because,  from  my  view 
of  the  case,  the  question  will  not  arise.  If 
it  should,  the  law  will  be  given  to  you  by 
the  Court  or  by  counsel,  as  the  circum¬ 
stances  of  the  case  demand. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  next  point  with 
reference  to  the  matter  is,  what  consti¬ 
tutes  excusable  or  justifiable  homicide, 
because,  as  I  have  stated  to  you,  there 
are  instances  where  a  person  is  not  crim¬ 
inal — legally,  nor  in  sound  common  sense, 
for  acts  of  homicide  he  commits.  Ex¬ 
cusable  homicide  is  where  a  man  doing 
a  lawful  act,  without  any  intent,  by  acci¬ 
dent  kills  another,  as  where  a  man  is  hunt¬ 
ing  in  a  park  and  accidentally  kills  a  per¬ 
son.  Another  phase  of  that  kind  of  homi¬ 
cide  is  where  it  is  done  in  self-defence. 
That  don’t  require  any  definition  for  you  to 
understand.  Justifiable  homicide  is  where 
there  is  killing  by  unavoidable  neces¬ 
sity  without  any  will,  intention,  desire 
or  neglect ;  likewise  for  the  advance¬ 
ment  of  public  justice,  as  where  an 
officer  performs  an  execution  or  something 
of  that  kind.  The  distinction  between 
murder  and  manslaughter  is  that  murder 
requires  an  intent  to  kill,  and  manslaugh¬ 
ter  is  where  there  is  killing  without 
intent.  For  instance:  If  one  person  strikes 
another  with  a  blow  of  his  fist,  and  it  is 


clear  that  that  blow  produced  death 
happening  to  strike  in  some  partic 
spot,  and  it  was  free  from  any  inten 
kill,  that  would  not  be  murder;  it  w< 
be  manslaughter.  In  a  case  where 
persons  get  into  a  quarrel  and  one  gre 
provokes  the  other,  strikes  him  blows 
arouses  his  passions,  so  that  iD  the  hei : 
passion,  impulsively,  without  any  pren  : 
tated  design,  without  even  thinking  '  j 
would  be  the  result,  and,  goaded  od  b;  i 
acts  of  the  person  abusing  him,  he  sfc  s 
a  blow  with  a  knife  or  something  that  c 
duces  death,  the  law  in  its  benignity  y 
that  a  man  may  be  so  treated  and  pr<  a 
that  he  should  not  be  held  as  guilty  of  j 
der,  although  he  produced  death  w 
murderous  weapon,  if  done  under  a 
circumstances.  I  do  not  propose  t  gi 
into  any  more  definite  or  close  defin  oi 
with  regard  to  manslaughter,  becanl 
confess  that,  in  no  phase  of  the  case  il 
that  question  be  likely  to  arise,  but  i 
should  you  will  then  be  instructed  as  1  i 
law. 

Standing  here  as  a  public  officer,  1  re 
senting  the  people  only,  I  come  simj  t 
perform  a  duty.  I  come  here  asycdo 
and  will  present  this  case  to  you  as  .el 
as  I  am  able,  without  prejudice,  wi  on 
passion,  without  professional  pride,  itk 
out  any  thing  improperly  influenci)  m 
in  anything  I  may  do.  I  trust  yoiwil 
not  consider  it,  if  in  the  excitemd  o 
words  and  the  conflict  of  counsel,  I  s  »ul< 
seem  to  show  any  zeal,  and  will  att  >nti 
it  only  to  the  excitement  of  the  mo  fa: 
I  have  no  feeling  in  this  matter  <3epl 
that  justice  should  be  done  to  the  jopb 
and  the  prisoner. 

It  is  not  for  me  to  say  what  the  def  seii 
in  this  case.  I  do  not  know  what  it :  aaa 
if  I  did  it  would  not  be  proper  for  n  ben 
to  state  it.  If  it  is  a  legal  defense,  id  i 
it  be  proven,  I  can  only  say  I  tru  yoa 
will  render  a  verdict  acquitting  the  ]iso»- 
er.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  legll 
defense,  and  if  it  is  not  proven,  cifl 
other  words,  you  are  satisfied  after:  hfl 
been  interposed,  that  the  peopl<b*w 
made  out  a  case  beyond  a  rea.‘H*bb 


17 


ibt,  it  is  a  duty  you  owe  to  your  God, 
:  he  people,  to  yourselves,  to  smite  the 
dy  hand  of  the  assassin,  and  it  is  a  duty 
<  owe  to  sustain  the  time  honored  prin- 
i.es  of  the  law.  They  have  come  down 
)us  from  time  immemorial,  they  have 
;  >d  the  test  of  ages  ;  they  have  been 
i  lifted  from  time  to  time,  as  a  higher 
eree  of  intelligence  and  a  greater 
a  unt  of  experience  have  required  ;  but 
utantially  they  have  remained  as  they 
o  are  for  a  long  period  of  years.  If 
leircumstances  of  this  case  warrant  it, 
a  there  is  no  defense  known  to  the  law 
st  dished  here  before  you,  it  will  be  your 
u  to  rebuke  this  mawkish  sensibility 
hh  seems  to  be  pervading  our  society, 
n'which  in  many  instances  even  leads 
n  citizens  to  sympathize  with  crime, 
k  only  safe  criterion  is  the  old  prin- 
p  s.  And  if  there  should  be  developed 
ij mitigating  circumstances  which  the 
wecognizes  and  which  those  principles 
ta  I  have  suggested  to  you  recognize, 
ai  it  where  it  belongs,  where,  in  mir  ad¬ 
miration  of  the  Government  we  have 
itidy  placed  the  pardoning  power — 

■  t|  Governor  of  the  State.  He  is  given 
tat  power  with  a  view  of  meeting  cases 
iiet  there  seem  to  be  some  circumstances 
ait.  may,  outside  of  sound,  genuine, legal 
in  pies,  mitigate  the  offense.  Whether 
es  remarks  have  any  application  to  this 
se  do  not  know-  I  make  them  because 
e  :ea  niay  suggest  itself  to  your  minds 
-0  the  conclusion  of  the  trial. 

In  ll  fairness  I  ask  you  simply  to  sus- 
u  he  law  by  your  verdict ;  and  if  it 
t  nout  on  this  trial  that  this  defendant 
8  >mmitted  this  act,  but  that  still, 
le  the  law,  you  can  say  by  your 
rdi;;  she  may  go  scot-free ;  that  it 
jm  and  right  and  proper  that  she 
ml  thus  go,  no  person  shall  be 
me  satisfied  than  I.  But  if,  on 
'  0  er  hand,  it  shall  appear  to  you  that 
i  C'amitted  this  offense  ;  that  she  com- 
tte  it  without  any  palliating  circum- 
n ci  known  to  the  law  which  made  it 
tifi  >le  ;  that  she  committed  it  without 
'  0  the  circumstances  known  to  the 


law  that  make  it  excusable  ;  that  she  was 
in  sound  mind  and  memory ;  and  if  it 
should  still  farther  appear  to  you  that  she 
deliberately  planned  this  attack,  and  placed 
herself  purposely  in  a  position  with- 
view  to  commit  this  offense  and  kill  th 
man,  all  defenceless  and  unarmed  as  ht 
was,  I  trust  you  will  not,  by  your  verdict, 
say  that  vengeance  for  any  supposed  per 
sonal  wrong  shall  be  taken  into  the  hands 
of  private  persons. 


COMMENCEMENT  OF  TESTI¬ 
MONY. 

Dr.  CREAMER,  the  first  witness  on  the  part 
of  the  prosecution,  was  called  and  did  not  ap¬ 
pear. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — It  may  be  that  we  can  save 
some  time.  The  defense  admit  that  Mr.  W atson, 
the  deceased,  came  to  his  death  from  a  pistol 
shot  wound,  inflicted  on  the  26th  of  January  last 
at  the  hands  of  Fanny  Hyde,  and  that- she  was 
with  her  brother  when  the  pistol  was  purchased 
from  N.  J.  Stowell.  These  facts  we  make  no 
question  of;  and  as  she  admitted  the  fact-- 

Mr.  BRITTON  (interrupting). — Of  course 
the  facts  and  circumstances,  in  the  case  of  mur¬ 
der,  under  which  these  acts  were  done,  have  to 
be  shown.  There  can  be  no  waiver  of  that. 

The  COURT. — Do  you  say  the  admission  is 
that  she  purchased  the  pistol? 

Mr.  MORRIS. — She  was  with  her  brother 
when  the  pistol  was  purchased  of  Mr.  Stowell; 
and  we  admit  that  Mr.  Watson  died  from  the 
effects  of  a  pistol  shot  wound  at  the  hands  of 
Fanny  Hyde.  She  went  there  with  her  brother 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  this  pistol.  We  make 
no  point  of  that. 

Dr.  CREAMER  was  again  called,  but  did  not 
appear. 

JAMES  H.  CORNWALL,  Jr.,  called  as  a 
witness,  but  did  not  appear. 

ADMISSION  by  the  defense  of  the  diagram 
of  the  premises  in  question,  put  in  by  the  pros¬ 
ecution. 


EUen  Curley — Sworn  for  the  Prose¬ 
cution. 

By  Mr.  BRITTON. — Where  do  you  reside? 
A.  No.  27  South  Fifth  street. 

Q.  Where  did  you  work  on  the  26th  of  last 
January?  A.  At  the  comer  of  South  Eleventh 
and  First  streets. 

Q.  For  whom  were  you  working  there  ?  A. 
For  Dexter  &  Devereux. 

Q.  Did  you  know  the  deceased,  Mr.  Watson  ? 
A.  Yes. 


18 


Q.  Who  were  in  the  premises  where  you  were 
working  that  clay,  say  between  11  and  12  o'clock? 
A.  Mr.  Dexter  and  his  wife,  Mr.  Watson,  Mrs. 
Hyde  and  me. 

Q.  Five  in  all?  A.  Yes;  and  a  young  girl 
named  Mary  Kelley. 

fi_  Q.  At  what  time,  if  at  all,  did  you  leave  these 
ke  emises  before  noon  ?  A.  Ten  minutes  to 
.velve. 

t  Q.  How  do  you  know  it  was  ten  minutes  to 
twelve  ?  A.  I  was  in  the  room  down  stairs  and 
saw  what  time  it  was  by  the  clock. 

Q.  What  kind  of  an  establishment  was  this 
'  where  you  worked  ?  A.  Hair  net  manufactory. 

Q.  At  what  hour  did  the  bell  ring  in  that  fac¬ 
tory  for  closing  work  in  the  forenoon  ?  A. 
Twelve  o’clock. 

Q.  At  the  time  you  went  out  of  those  premi¬ 
ses,  as  you  say,  ten  minutes  to  twelve,  had  that 
bell  rung?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  other  signal  was  there  which  was 
given  for  closing  in  the  forenoon,  beside  the 
bell  ?  A.  There  is  no  bell;  it  is  a  whistle. 

Q.  Y ou  went  out  at  ten  minutes  before  twelve  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  ?  A.  To  Division  Ave¬ 
nue. 

Q.  About  how  far  is  that?  A.  Two  blocks. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain— did  you  go 
directly  to  that  place  ?  A.  Yes;  after  I  went  out 
of  the  shop  down  stairs. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  there  ?  A.  I 
was  back  before  the  whistle  blew. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  when  you  was  there? 
A.  I  went  to  the  store  and  back  again. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  to  the  store  ?  A.  I  went 
to  get  the  things  for  my  dinner. 

Q.  You  did  not  stay  there  and  eat  your  din¬ 
ner?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  took  that  back  to  the  factory  ?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  You  returned  to  the  factory?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  About  how  long  do  you  think  you  was 
gone  ?  A.  From  seven  to  eight  minutes. 

Q.  Why  do  you  think  that?  A.  Because  it 
was  ten  minutes  to  twelve  when  I  left  and  I  was 
back  about  three  minutes  before  the  whistle 
blew. 

Q.  When  you  came  back  what  first  attracted 
your  attention  on  the  floor  of  the  stairway — who 
did  you  see  there?  A.  The  only  one  I  saw  when 
I  first  went  in  was  Mrs.  Hyde  standing  at  the 
head  of  the  stairs. 

Q.  What  stairs  ?  A.  The  first  flight, 

Q.  What  was  she  doing  ?  A.  She  was  knock¬ 
ing  at  the  door. 

Q.  Anything  else  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  next  attracted  your  attention  ?  A. 
That  was  all. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  deceased  ?  A.  No,  sir,  not 
at  that  time. 

Q.  How  soon  after  did  you  see  the  deceased  ? 
A.  Two  minutes  after. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  between  the  time  you 
came  into  the  premises  and  the  time  you  saw  the 
deceased  ?  A.  I  knocked  at  the  door. 

Q.  What  else?  A.  That  was  all. 

Q.  Did  anyone  come  out?  A.  Yes,  but  I 
could  not  recollect  who  it  was. 

Q.  Then  after  that  you  saw  the  deceased?  A. 
Yes. 


Q.  Where?  A.  At  the  foot  of  the  se 
flight  of  stairs. 

Q.  How  was  he  lying  ?  A.  Lying  right  a 
the  foot  of  the  stairs. 

Q.  Then  where  did  you  go?  A.  I  we: 
the  flush  room  on  the  second  floor. 

Q.  Before  you  went  into  that  flush  roon 
anyone  come  out?  No,  sir;  not  as  I  seen. 

Q.  Was  any  person  there  other  than  tb 
ceased  lying  on  the  floor  and  you  and  defen 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Before  you  went  into  that  room  ?  A 
sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  on  that  s 
floor  room?  A.  Until  after  the  whistle  b 

Q.  And  then  where  did  you  go?  j| 
stairs. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  the  whistle  blow  ?  A. : 

Q.  When  you  went  up  stairs  was  del 
still  in  that  place  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anybody  else  there  thei 
Yes;  I  saw  Mrs.  Hyde’s  lather. 

Q.  Anybody  else?  A.  Air.  Cox  and  JI  ’ 
ley.  I 

Q.  Then  you  went  up  into  the  third  4 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  that  forenoon  before  yoi  A 
out  see  deceased  and  Mrs.  Hyde  ?  A.  Yi  1 

Q.  Where  were  they  ?  A.  In  the  sami(| 
with  me. 

Q.  What  doing?  A.  Working. 

Q.  Near  each  other  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  near  ?  A.  At  one  table. 

Q.  Working  together  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  conversing  toge  3 
all?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  did  they  appear  towards  each 
was  there  anything  unusual  in  their  appe  me 

Objected  to. 

The  COURT.  —  Describe  anything  y<  » 
Did  you  see  anything  different  from  w  :  y 
usually  saw  ? 

Objected  to. 

The  COURT. — She  can  state  what 


there. 

Q.  What  did  you  see  there  ?  A.  I  die 
anything  at  all  ;  all  I  could  see  was,  I  s  ill 
working  together  all  the  morning. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  talking  together  « 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  Down  to  what  time  did  you  s;  ti« 
there  ?  A.  Down  to  ten  minutes  to  tvW 

Q.  The  time  you  went  out  ?  A.  Yes,  , 

Q.  Was  the  machinery  running  till 
Yes. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  been  workiii  tw 
A.  I  went  there  shortly  after  New 
work  for  Air.  Dexter. 

Q.  During  that  tune  was  Air.  AVatsotlfl 
or  most  of  the  time  ?  A.  Some  of  the  roe 

Q.  Was  there  any  time  in  which  Aid'* 
was  accustomed  to  leave  the  premises  T®5 


whistle  blow  ? 

Objected  to.  . 

Offer  by  the  prosecution  to  show  tit 
the  custom  of  the  deceased  to  leave  tlu;*r 
at  about  the  time  he  left  on  this  day. 

The  COURT.— Admitted  so 
within  the  knowledge  of  this  witness  I 

Exception  by  the  defense. 

A.  He  generally  went  at  five  minu  i 


19 


SVliat  time  did  lie  generally  come  back, 
fore  half-past  twelve. 

Do  you  know  of  your  own  knowledge 
he  was  accustomed  to  go.  A.  No,  sir. 

Do  you  know  whether  the  defendant  was 
imed  to  leave  the  premises  or  not  at  any 
|lar  time  before  the  whistle  blew?  A.  No, 

Cross-examination. 

>!r.  MORKIS. — I  call  your  attention  to 
[  rt  of  your  examination  before  the  Coro- 
ou  was  examined  before  the  Coroner? 

will  read  this  for  the  purpose  of  refresh¬ 
er  memory — When  you  say  you  saw  her 
Jrou  returned  to  the  stairs— “she  was 
fig  her  hands  she  said  to  me,  “  Go  in- 
ip  tell  the  men  to  come  out,  that  Mr. 

\  was  lying  in  the  hall  ’’—that’s  correct, 

j'tion  to  any  declarations  of  the  defendant 
ti  alleged  killing. 

•  IORRIS. — But  they  have  proved  what 
i  — a  part  of  it.  Witness  said  that  Mrs. 

Id  her  to  go  inside. 

.  RITTON. — Not  a  word  ;  I  did  not  ask 
j)rd  on  that  subject. 

.  [ORRIS. — Then  what  she  said  on  that 
cjis  stricken  out  ? 

e  OURT. — I  understand  nothing  of  that 
i;  n. 

•  IORRIS. — Then,  if  that  is  stricken  out, 
e  o  more  questions  to  ask  her. 


Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  took  one  with 
him  ?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not  see  him. 

Q.  Who  left  first  ?  A.  Mrs.  Hyde. 

Q.  How  long  had  Mrs.  Hyde  'left  the  room 
bet  ore  Mr.  Watson  left.  A.  About  three  min, 
utes. 

Q.  Did  she  put  on  any  outside  apparel  before 
she  went  out.  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Watson  had 
his  hat  on  ?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  had. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  she  had  a  hat  on  ? 
A.  No,  sir  ;  she  had  a  shawl  on  around  her 
shoulders. 

Q.  Had  she  been  wearing  her  shawl  during 
the  forenoon  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where  did  you  next  see  these  parties  or 
any  of  them  ?  A.  At  twelve  o’clock,  when  I 
was  going  to  my  dinner. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  the  room  before  the  whistle 
blew  ?  A.  No,  sir  ;  just  as  the  whistle  blew,  I 
went  out. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  Mr.  Watson  ?  A.  He 
was  lying  across  the  foot  of  the  stairs. 

Q.  Who  did  you  see  there  when  you  came 
out?  A.  Mr.  Pixley,  Mr.  Petty,  Mr.  Windley 
— Panny’s  father. 

Q.  Do  you  know  her  brother  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  there  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  were  they  doing,  any  of  them  ?  A. 
Just  standing  there  ;  Mr.  Pixley  was  holding 
Mr.  Watson’s  head. 

Q.  Was  Mrs.  Hyde  there  then  ?  A.  No,  sir  ; 
she  was  up  stairs. 

No  cross-examination. 


I ary  Ann  Kelley — Sworn. 

Mere  do  you  live  ?  A.  34  First  street. 
Y.ere  did  you  work  on  the  26th  of  Janu- 
t  .e  time  of  this  occurrence  ?  A.  South 
ii  and  First  streets. 

0  which  floor  of  the  building  ?  A.  The 
fl  r. 

V  else  worked  there  on  that  occasion  ? 
r.  Dexter  and  wife,  Miss  Curley,  Mrs. 
Watson  and  myself. 

B  you  see  Mr.  Watson  and  Mrs.  Hyde 
tk  forenoon?  A.  Yes. 

Mat  time  ?  They  were  there  all  the 
A  up  to  ten  minutes  to  twelve. 

Wit  doing?  A.  Working  at  the  same 

D  you  see  anything  occurring  between 
hector  word?  No,  sir. 

Di  you  see  whether  or  not  they  conversed 
ici  A.  Yes,  they  conversed  together. 

Di  you  know  when  the  last  witness  went 
t  room  ?  A.  She  went  out  about  ten 
es  i  twelve. 

ih left  you  there?  A.  Yes. 

He1  long  after  that  was  it  that  Mr.  Wat- 
jhj3  *?°m  '■  A.  He  went  right  after  her. 
'V  t  did  he  do  preparatory  to  going  out, 
aHjig  on  clothing  ?  A.  Nothing  at  aR. 
Jo  ou  know  whether  he  put  on  an  over- 
*■  Not  inside. 


Ayer  Pixley — Sworn. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live  ?  A.  45  Hudson  avenue. 

Q.  Where  were  you  engaged  on  the  26th  of 
January?  A.  In  the  Merrill  building,  corner 
of  South  Eleventh  and  First  streets:  the  factory. 

Q.  You  were  in  some  manner  related  to  the 
deceased?  A.  Yes  ;  I  am  his  father-in-law. 

Q.  On  which  floor  were  you  working  on  the 
day  of  this  occurrence  ?  A.  I  was  on  the  second 
floor. 

Q.  What  first  attracted  your  attention  to  it  ? 
A.  A  knocking  or  kicking  at  the  door. 

Q.  Did  you  see  who  did  it  ?  A.  I  opened  the 
door  and  Ellen  Curley  came  in. 

Q.  Then  what  did  you  do  ?  A.  I  went  direct¬ 
ly  out  in  the  hall  and  saw  Mr.  Watson  there  ; 
went  through  the  passage-way  around  to  the 
foot  of  the  stairs  and  saw  Mr.  Watson. 

Q.  Which  stairs?  A.  The  stairs  leading 
from  the  second  floor  to  the  third  floor. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  that  was  the  position 
of  the  deceased  on  that  diagram  ?  A.  (.Witness 
pointing  out. )  That  is  the  lower  floor  and  that 
the  second  floor.  He  was  across  the  foot  of  the 
stairs — these  upper  stairs. 

Q.  What  was  the  attitude  ?  A.  He  was  lying 
on  his  back,  his  feet  by  the  partition  ;  his  head 
extended  out  beyond  the  stairs,  his  body  against 
the  riser  of  the  first  stairs.  His  body  probably 
extended  from  about  the  elbow  beyond  the 
stairs. 


20 


Q.  Who  else  was  there  ?  A.  At  the  time 
when  I  got  there,  there  was  no  one  but  Fanny 
Hyde. 

Q.  Where  was  she  ?  A.  She  stood  opposite, 
beside  his  knees,  two  or  three  feet  from  him, 
bent  forward,  with  her  hand  put  to  her  fore¬ 
head,  shading  her  eyes  and  looking  at  his  face. 

Q.  Who  came  there  nest  after  that  ?  A.  The 
first  I  recollect  that  came  to  render  assistance, 
or  anything  of  that  kind,  was  Mr.  Merrill. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  when  you  discovered  the 
body  there  first?  A.  I  directly  stooped  down. 

I  saw  blood  flowing,  and  put  my  hand  over — 

Objected  to  on  the  ground  of  immateriality. 

Admitted. 

A.  I  placed  my  hand  over  where  the  blood 
was,  with  the  intention  of  stopping  the  blood. 

Q.  Did  you  find  the  wound  ?  A.  The  blood 
was  streaming  out  of  the  side  of  the  neck  ;  I 
put  my  hand  over  that,  and  I  found  the  blood 
was  still  flowing  like  at  the  other  side  of  the 
head — another  wound  where  the  blood  was 
flowing  still ;  I  put  my  hand  on  to  that. 

Q.  Was  the  deceased  then  alive,  or  not?  Did 
he  show  any  indication  of  life  ?  A.  I  don  t 
know  of  any  sign  of  life,  with  the  exception 
that  under  my  hand  I  felt  something  throbbing. 
Mr.  Merrill,  who  was  standing  by  us,  said — 

Q.  Never  mind  what  was  said.  Were  you 
there  when  Dr.  Creamer  came  ?  A.  I  have  no 
recollection  of  seeing  him  there. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  brother  of  Mrs.  Hyde  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  there  on  that  occasion  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  where  he  came  from  ?  A.  He 
came  from  the  direction  of  the  head  of  the 
stairs  ;  I  suppose  from  the  flush  room  ;  he  must 
have  come  out  from  that  floor  or  from  up  stairs. 

Q.  When  he  came  there  was  Mrs.  Hyde 
there  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What,  if  anything,  did  he  say  to  her  ? 

Mr.  MORRIS. — Where  was  Mrs.  Hyde?  A. 
Still  standing  there  in  the  same  position  I  first 
described. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — How  far  off  from  deceased 
was  Mrs.  Hyde  ?  A.  From  three  to  four  feet. 

Q.  Where  was  this  brother  ;  where  did  he 
come  from  and  what  did  he  do  ?  A.  He  came 
out  from  that  corner,  and  as  he  came  out  he  put 
his  hand  up  to  the  post  at  the  foot  of  the  stairs, 
he  could  not  come  up  stairs  without  coming 
over  Mr.  Watson  ;  he  put  his  hand  out  and.took 
hold  of  that  post  and  swung  around,  and  at  the 
same  time  put  the  other  hand  up  and  says  : 
‘  ‘  Fanny,  I  told  you  not  to  do  it.  ”  At  the  same 
time  he  put  the  other  hand  out  and  swung 
himself  around  over  the  body  up  stairs. 

Q.  Did  she  make  any  reply?  A.  She  did 
not,  that  I  heard. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  this  was  be¬ 
fore  or  after  the  whistle  blew  ?  A.  Before  the 
whistle  blew. 


Cross-examined. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — I  think,  probably,  we  will 
save  time  by  reserving  the  cross-examination  of 
this  witness  until  to-morrow  ;  we  would  like  to 
have  the  right  to  reserve  the  cross-examination. 


Mr.  BRITTON.— Does  the  Court  in 
adjourn? 

The  PRESIDING  JUSTICE.— Not  y« 

Mr.  BRITTON.— I  don’t  know  any 
why  the  cross-examination  should  be  sus) 

Mr.  MORRIS.— There  are  special  reasc 
I  desire  it. 

The  COURT.— If  the  witness  shouli 
the  court-room,  Judge  Morris  may  < 
him  ;  but  if  he  should  not  be  here,  fl 
would  leave  the  cross-examination.  1 
under  no  obligation  to  bring  him  here 
purpose. 

Mr.  MORRIS.— We  will  reserve  hii 
examination  until  to-morrow. 

Mr.  BRITTON.— I  do  not  accept  th 
sition  that  he  shall  be  called  by  us  to-n 


Margaret  Man  ie — Sworn , 

Mr.  BRITTON  to  Mr.  MORRIS.- 1 
any  controversy  as  to  whether  this  v 
before  twelve  o’clock  ? 

Mr.  MORRIS.— No. 

To  WITNESS.— Where  did  you  wo: I 
26th  of  January?  A.  For  Mrs.  Hyde  1 
Mr.  Windlev. 

Q.  What  was  his  business?  A.  I 
manufacturer. 

Q.  The  same  as  Mr.  Watson’s  ?  A.  1 

Q.  Where  was  that  being  conducted 
the  third  floor,  rear  part  of  the  buildii 

Q.  On  the  date  of  that  occurrence 
see  Mrs.  Hyde  in  that  room  ?  A.  Yes 

Q.  About  what  time?  A.  I  won’t < 
tive.  It  might  have  been  11  o’clock,  ! 
have  been  after — I  can’t  say.  ij 

Q.  How  long  did  she  remain  there?  - 
few  minutes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  her  brother  at  that  I 
I  could  not  say  as  he  was  there  at  that 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  there  that  forei  « 
Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  go  out? 

Objected  to. 

Mr.  BRITTON.— We  want  to  set 
he  went  out  before  the  occurrence.  « 
proved  him  there  and  proved  him  on 

Objection  sustained  for  the  present!  1 
No  cross-examination. 


Kelson  J.  Stowell — Stan. 


Q.  Your  business  ?  A.  Gun  and  xi 
Q.  Was  it  in  January?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  that  pistol  ben 
ingonel?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where  was  it  in  January? 
store,  86  Broadway. 

Q.  Did  you  dispose  of  it?  A.  i 
Q.  What  were  the  circumstanc 
with  the  disposing  of  that  pistol? w 
tleman  and  lady  called  at  my  pH 
gentleman  asked  me  to  show  him  sM 
I  showed  him  this  one,  and  he  han  a 


3  asked  her  if  it  suited  her ;  she  said 
md  he  paid  for  it,  and  they  walked  out. 
I>w  long  did  they  stay  there  ?  A.  Ordi- 
ne — five  to  ten  minutes. 

'bat  was  said  there?  A.  I  could  not 
fell 

jout  how  long  before  this  occurrence 
A.  About  a  week  or  a  week  and  a  half 
jreeks. 

here  did  you  see  that  lady  next  ?  A.  I 
'  at  Justice  Voorhees’  court-room. 

[  you  recognize  her  in  the  court-room 
l.  Yes.  (Pointing  to  the  defendant. ) 
i  er  that,  where  did  you  next  see  the 
?  A.  I  saw  it  there.  Captain  Woglom 
Ivn  and  fetched  it  with  him. 

No  cross-examination. 


I  Cornelius  Woglom — Sworn. 

fi  are  captain  of  the  5th  Precinct  Po- 
J  Yes. 

)  you  remember  the  day  of  this  homi- 
I  do. 

)  you  see  the  prisoner  on  that  day  ?  A. 

A  ere?  A.  She  came  to  the  station- 

Vo  with  ?  A.  Her  father  and  brother. 
Mat  time  of  day  was  that  ?  A.  Between 
bwo  o’clock. 

V  it  occurred  ?  Did  you  see  this  pistol 
13  A.  Yes. 

V;re  did  you  see  it?  A.  Mr.  Hyde 
1  to  me  from  his  pocket. 

-1  re  was  a  conversation?  A.  Yes. 

Lir  that,  what  was  done  as  to  the  pris- 
Wetook  her  name  and  pedigree,  and 
lr  up. 

k was  placed  under  arrest?  A.  Yes. 

was  all  that  occurred?  A.  Yes,  in- 
le;  of  what  was  said. 
rc  kept  this  pistol  ?  A.  Yes. 

V  n  this  pistol  came  into  your  posses- 
is  t  loaded  at  all  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

3  EAMER  was  again  called  as  a  wit- 
u was  not  present. 

I  STRICT  ATTORNEY  said  he  had 
tlr  evidence  ready  to  offer  before  Dr. 
a 

C  irt  then  announced  to  the  witnesses 
h  des  to  be  present  at  next  morning  at 
io  . 

8  nonished  the  jurors  not  to  converse 
ai  jonversation  on  the  case  during  the 
n  nt ;  and  then  adjourned  until  the 
‘y  -t  ten  a.  m. 

— - - 


To 


SECOND  DAY. 

]ph  Creamer,  sivorn  for 
Prosecution. 


the 


oi  business?  A.  I  am  a  physician, 
iol  the  position  of  surgeon  of  police. 


Q.  Did  you  make  the'post-mortem  examination 
on  the  body  of  Mr.  Watson  in  January  last? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where  was  it  made  ?  A.  In  Brooklyn,  at 
the  house  of  his  father-in-law. 

A.  Describe  what  injuries  you  found  on  his 
person  ?  A.  I  found,  on  examination,  some 
portions  of  the  face  and  on  the  left  eye-brow 
some  skin  removed,  and  on  top  of  the  head,  a 
wound  extending  over  the  scalp  some  inch  and 
a  quarter  ;  it  looked  like  an  incised  -wound. 
On  the  right  side  of  the  neck,  posteriorly,  at 
the  back,  a  shot-wound. 

Q.  What  was  the  direction  of  the  wound? 
A.  Inward,  upward  and  forward. 

Q.  About  where  would  it  come  out  in  that 
line  of  direction?  A.  It  would  have  come  out 
at  the  top  of  the  head,  (witness  indicating  the 
top  and  center. )  By  removing  the  scalp,  I 
found  the  bullet  imbedded  in  the  substance  of 
the  brain. 

Q.  Was  the  bullet  about  like  that  ?  (showing. ) 
A.  That's  the  ball,  as  near  as  I  can  remember. 

Q.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  other  wounds 
and  abrasions,  and  how  would  you  think  they 
were  caused,  supposing  the  person  was  shot  on 
the  stairway  and  fell  down  stairs?  A.  They 
were  small  abrasions,  and  might  have  been 
caused  by  falling.  If  by  blows,  they  w'ould 
have  been  in  a  slanting  direction,  would  have 
come  downward,  because  the  skin  was  merely 
contused. 

Q.  The  other  wounds  were  abrasions,  and 
might  have  been  made  by  falling  down  stairs  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir.  It  is  quite  possible  they  might 
have  been  caused  in  that  way. 

Q.  From  what  direction,  in  your  judgment, 
must  the  shot  that  caused  that  wound  have 
been  fired,  in  relation  to  the  party  receiving  the 
shot  ? 

Mr.  MORRIS.— I  object  to  the  question. 
He  may  state  where  it  was  located,  the  direction 
it  entered,  ilnd  the  course  it  took. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — My  question  was  what 
the  direction  of  the  wound  indicated  as  to  the 
position  of  the  party  firing  the  shot  and  of  the 
party  receiving  the  shot  ? 

Mr.  MORRIS. — Objected  to.  That  is  not  a 
question  calling  for  the  opinion  of  an  expert. 
He  can  state  how  the  ball  entered  and  the  course  ; 
but  as  to  the  position  of  the  parties,  the  jury 
can  judge  as  well  as  a  physician. 

Q.  If  I  understand  you,  the  ball  came  in  at 
the  neck.  Was  the  course  of  the  ball  direct  or 
tortuous  ?  A.  It  was  direct,  upward  and  for¬ 
ward.  It  entered  the  neck  behind  the  ear, 
and  took  an  oblique  direction  upward  and  for¬ 
ward. 

Q.  Did  you  discover,  in  your  examination, 
whether  the  ball  came  in  contact  with  anything 
that  diverted  it  from  its  natural  course  which  it 
had  from  the  start.  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  cause  of  the  death  of  Mr. 
Watson?  A.  The  injury  to  the  brain  and 
spinal  cord  by  this  bullet. 

Q.  How  long  after  such  a  wound  would  a 
person  be  likely  to  live.  A.  A  few  minutes — 
eight  to  ten  minutes. 

Q.  Was  there  any  other  wound  tending  to 
cause  death?  A.  No,  sir.  I  found  no  other 


22 


cause  of  death.  The  only  cause  I  can  attribute 
would  be  the  bullet. 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  About  how  bill  a  man  was  Mr.  W atson  ? 
A.  I  am  not  a  good  judge  of  the  size.  He 
appeared  to  me  to  be  a  tall  man.  I  should  say 
five  feet  ten,  or  something  like  that. 

Q.  Don't  you  thiuk  he  was  a  little  taller  than 
that  ?  A.  He  might  have  been. 

Q.  Will  you  state  the  character  of  these  abra¬ 
sions  on  the  face  ?  A.  They  were  abrasions. 
The  skin  was  merely  removed.  There  was  one 
over  the  left  eye  ;  a  small  portion  of  the  skin 
was  removed,  and  one  down  the  face  ;  the  skin 
from  the  lower  portion  of  the  nose,  and  an  in¬ 
cised  wound  through  the  scalp. 

Q.  What  directions  were  these  abrasions  on 
the  face  ?  A.  They  were  downward. 

By  a  JUROR. — On  which  side  of  the  head 
was  this  wound  ?  on  the  right  or  left  ?  A. 
On  the  right  side. 


Mr.  PIXLE Y.  — Recalled. 

Q.  Did  you  have  anything  to  do  with  the  re¬ 
moval  of  the  body  from  the  factory  ?  A.  Yes  ; 
I  helped  carry  it  into  the  room. 

'  Q.  Did  he  have  an  outer  garment  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  was  that  ?  A.  That  s  the  garment 
(producing  a  spring-overcoat. ) 

Q.  'Who  took  it  off?  A.  The  undertaker  at 
my  house. 

Q.  Were  you  present?  A.  Yes. 

Offered  for  the  purpose  of  showing  a  hole 
through  the  collar  of  the  coat. 

Cross-examination. 

Q.  How  tall  a  man  was  Mr.  Watson?  A. 
Not  quite  as  tall  as  I  am.  I  am  five  feet  nine  ; 
he  was  about  five  feet  seven  or  eight. 

Q.  He  was  a  taller  man  than  you.  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  Mr.  Merrill 
came  there  and  was  the  first  one  you  saw  after 
you  saw  Mr.  Watson  lying  there  at  the  foot  of 
the  stairs  ?  A.  The  first  I  recollect. 

Q.  Is  that  the  likeness  of  Mr.  Watson  ?  (show¬ 
ing  a  likeness  of  a  man  and  two  girls.)  A.  I 
should  think  it  was. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  it.  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  say  whether  it  is  or  not?  A. 
To  the  best  of  my  judgment  it  is. 

Q.  You  cannot  be  any  more  positive  than 
that  ?  A.  I  don’t  want  to  be  any  more  positive 
than  that,  that  when  I  tell  you  that  according 
to  the  best  of  my  judgment  it  is. 

Q.  Can  you  state  positively  whether  it  is  or 
not?  A.  If  I  could  understand  the  necessity 
of  it.  I  cannot  understand  the  necessity.  I 
have  not  any  doubt  of  it.  I  give  it  as  my 
opinion. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  after  you  got  to  where 
Mr.  Watson  was  before  you  saw  Mr.  Merrill 
there  ?  A.  It  was  almost  the  same  moment. 

Q.  Did  not  some  other  parties  come  there  ? 
A.  Yes,  shortly  after.  A  great  number  came  in 
the  passage-way. 

Q.  How  soon  after  you  got  there  was  it  before 
these  other  parties  came  ?  A.  I  don't  sup¬ 
pose  it  was  a  minute. 


Q.  Who  were  there  ?  A.  I  could  i 
tinctly  recognize  but  two.  I  rememb 
Potts. 

Q.  Who  else  can  you  recollect  ?  A 
no  distinct  recollection  of  anybody  else 
the  brother. 

Q.  State  the  order  in  which  you  sav 
You  saw  Mr.  Merrill  first ;  where  did 
Mr.  Potts  ?  A.  The  next  thing,  I  loo 
the  hall  was  filled  I  looked  up  to  Mr. 
He  was  in  front  of  me.  Then  I  tun 
called  for  water  and  looked  around  tl 
way,  and  the  passage-way  was  filled  11 
was  among  them.  I  would  not  be 
about  any  other  one. 

Q.  The  first  thing  you  did  you  took 
Mr.  Watson’s  head  and  raised  it  ?  A.  ] 

Q.  What  was  the  first  thing  you  <1 
Put  my  hand  on  the  wound.  I  did  c 
the  head. 

Q.  You  put  your  hand  on  the  wo 
saw  Mr.  Merrill,  and  then  looked  upw 
Mr.  Potts,  and  the  passage  was  filled 
then  you  called  for  water  ?  A.  As  I  lc 
to  call  for  water,  I  saw  the  passage- 
fiHed. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  after  you  got  tl 
you  called  for  water.  A.  Not  to 
minute. 

Q.  Just  as  you  took  hold  of  him  to 
hand  on  the  wound,  you  looked  up  a 
for  water?  A.  It  was  momentary.  I 
have  been  within  a  minute. 

Q.  How  near  was  Mr.  Merrill  to  yt 
Potts  ?  A.  Mr.  Merrill  was  so  near  i 
had  hold  of  his  head  Mr.  Merrill  hat 
his  hand,  feeling  of  his  pulse. 

Q.  What  was  Mr.  Potts  at  ?  A.  1 
know  as  he  was  doing  anything  mor 
come  there,  and,  as  I  called  for  water  i 
exertion  to  find  it. 

Q.  Who  went  to  get  the  water  ?  I 
did  not  anybody  get  it. 

Q.  What  did  Mr.  Potts  do  after  u 
for  the  water?  A.  I  could  not  sat* 
did. 

Q.  Who  assisted  you  in  removing  1 
son  ?  A.  Mr.  Merrill. 

Q.  "Who  else  ?  A.  I  could  not  1  p 
who  was  the  other. 

Q.  But  there  was  some  person  e 
am  not  positive  about  that,  but  what 
Merrill  and  myself  carried  him  some 
might  have  taken  hold,  but  Merrill  1 
principally  carried. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  whetlil 
else  did  assist  or  not  ?  A.  I  could  n  I 
tive  whether  they  did  or  not 

Q.  When  you  looked  up  to  see  thli 
did  you  see  any  ladies  there  ?  A.  I  id 
lect  of  seeing  any. 

Q.  About  how  many  do  you  thiij 
the  hall- way  ?  A.  W ell,  I  could  lg 
cause  it  would  take  about  three  fronl 
appeared  to  me  to  be  a  solid  coin! 
About  three  could  stand  abreast 

Q.  Were  they  standing  abreast  ?  L 

Q.  How  near  was  the  front  one  K 
you  ?  A.  I  should  say  about  three  ft 

Q.  Were  you  excited  at  the  time  i 1 


28 


f.’t  know  wliat  I  am  to  understand  by 

Were  you  cool  and  calm?  A.  I  was  cool 

lm. 

[Were  you  confused?  A.  No,  sir.  I  was 
>  a  remarkable  degree  for  the  occasion. 
Then  you  understood  the  question  when 
•1  you  if  you  was  excited,  you  understand 
:;tinction  between  the  two  terms,  to  say 
as  remarkably  cool— more  than  ordina- 
r  A.  More  than  ordinary  for  such  cir- 
nnces. 

fhat  is  a  little  indefinite.  Can  you  state 
t  it  you  were  excited  or  confused  ?  A.  I 
c  know  as  I  can  give  any  better  explana- 
it  than  I  have. 

lave  you  ever  been  under  such  circum- 
c'  before  to  know  how  parties  act  under 
■  fs  these?  A.  No.  I -have  never  been 
these  circumstances  exactly.  I  have 
rties  under  some  such  circumstances. 

’on’t  you  think  you  were  a  little  excited  ? 
i  COURT. — Were  you  agitated  in  any  de- 
?  A.  I  could  not  be  otherwise  than  sorne- 
t  gitated. 

rhat  did  Mr.  Potts  say  to  you  ?  A.  If  I 
li  t  anything  that  he  said  it  was  merely  in 
u  to  the  question,  he  said  he  could  not 
a?  water. 

id  you  go  for  the  water.  A.  I  could 
S8,  I  did  not  follow  him. 

d  you  recollect  of  his  making  that  re- 
c  A.  I  think  I  do  ;  but  at  any  rate  there 
|  water  brought,  consequently  I  con¬ 
ic  hey  could  not  get  any. 
o  you  recollect  any  remark  that  any  of 
>t  rs  made  ?  A.  I  do  not  particularly. 

Re-direct. 

'hen  you  say  you  don’t  recollect  the  re¬ 
ts  lat  either  of  the  others  made,  do  you 
1 1  say  you  don’t  recollect  the  remark  made 
h brother?  A.  No,  I  don’t  mean  to  say 
a®.  J 

lu  do  not  mean  to  change  your  testi- 
f  t  to  that?  A.  No,  not  at  all. 

CHE  PROSECUTION  HERE  RESTED.  ] 

•  .ORRIS,  for  the  defendant  here  made  a 
mor  the  court  to  instruct  the  jury  that 
efidant  is  not  called  upon  to  make  any 
stand  said  : 

t'  Court  please  I  respectfully  submit 
e  pt  called  upon  in  this  case  to  make  any 
sender  the  law.  I  submit  to  the  Court 
he ;  is  no  proof  of  the  first  element  of  the 
c  murder.  I  submit  that  they  have  not, 

-!1  with,  proved  that  Watson  was  killed 
« jisoner. 

RITTON. — In  one  respect  I  was  mis- 
t  iat  I  supposed  to  be  the  concession  of 
el  or  the  prisoner.  I  ask  the  Court  to 
d  tified  this  pistol  and  bullet, 
i  )RRIS. — I  don't  see  how  the  counsel 
at  i  his  mind.  W e  expressly  repudiated  it. 

:  CRT . — The  Court  will  give  him  that 

i 

1  ITTON. — I  believe  I  proved  it  by 
ln  ^oglom.  The  pistol  was  delivered 
a  y  the  prisoner’s  husband,  the  three 


being  together.  We  have  proved  that  this 
was  the  ball  taken  from  the  deceased.  The  jury 
can  determine  whether  the  ball  fits  the  pistol. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — Now  if  the  Court  please,  let 
us  see  where  this  case  stands  and  wliat  the 
District  Attorney  has  proven.  He  has  proven — 

Mr.  BRITTON. — Wliat  is  the  motion  before 
the  Court  ? 

Mr.  MORRIS.— I  claim  I  am  not  called  upon 
under  the  law  to  make  any  defense  at  all,  and 
the  Court  must  say  so  to  the  jury. 

Mr.  BRITTON.  — Then  is  the  case  closed  ? 

Mr.  MORRIS. — No,  sir ;  the  case  is  not 
closed. 

Mr.  BRITTON.  — He  has  no  right  to  make 
any  such  request.  There  is  no  such  practice  as 
requesting  the  Court  to  charge  the  jury  until 
the  case  is  closed.  The  counsel  must  rest  his 
case  or  go  on  with  the  evidence. 

The  COURT.— As  I  understand  the  practice, 
he  rests  his  case  for  the  purpose  of  his  motion. 
II  the  Court  should  not  coincide  with  his  view 
then  he  would  have  the  right  to  go  on  with  his 
testimony. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  never  heard  of  such  a 
practice  in  criminal  cases.  Perhaps  I  am 
wrong. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — I  will  state  it  is  a  universal 
practice,  a  common  practice,  a  proper  practice, 
it  the  prosecution  have  proved  nothing,  if  there 
is  no  evidence  that  would  justify  the  jury  in 
convicting,  then  the  Court  should  say  so'  to  the 
jury.  Now  I  desire  to  present  briefly  my  viewrs 
with  reference  to  that  question.  Now'  what  is 
this  case  ?  The  prisoner  here  is  indicted  for 
the  crime  of  willful  murder— murder  in  the  first 
degree.  In  order  to  sustain  this  indictment  the 
prosecution,  in  the  first  place,  must  prove  be¬ 
yond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  the  accused  kiUed 
the  party  alleged  in  the  indictment.  But  w'hen 
they  have  proved  this  they  have  only  taken  the 
first  step  in  proving  the  crime  of  murder.  They 
must  prove  that  that  was  done  deliberately, 
that  it  w'as  done  with  premeditation,  that  it  was 
done  with  an  intent  existing  at  the  time,  to  take 
his  life.  The  mere  fact  of  killing,  it  there  is 
anything  in  this  case  from  which  that  can  be 
inferred,  does  not  constitute  the  crime  of  mur¬ 
der,  by  any  means.  They  have  not  in  this  case 
proved  or  attempted  to  prove  that  there  was  any 
motive  whatever,  lrom  which  an  attempt  to 
take  life  might  be  inferred.  Assuming  these 
facts  would  warrant  the  inference  that  the 
prisoner  killed  Mr.  Watson,  they  have  not 
proved  any  act  connected  w'ith  the  killing  from 
which  an  intent  to  kill  could  be  inferred.  They 
have  simply  proven  that  she  purchased  this  pis¬ 
tol,  produced  here,  in  company  with  her  brother, 
or  that  her  brother  purchased  the  pistol  and 
asked  her  it  that  would  do,  and  she  said  yes, 
and  that  she  went  away,  she  and  the  brother 
with  this  pistol.  From  that  day  until  the 
shooting,  and  from  that  day  until  this,  there  is 
not  a  particle  of  evidence  in  the  case,  that  the 
pistol  w'as  ever  in  her  jiossession,  or  her  hands. 
They  proved  further  in  reference  to  the  pistol, 
that  it  w'as  given  to  Captain  Woglom  by  the 
husband  of  the  prisoner,  so  that  after  the  pur¬ 
chase  of  the  pistol  they  proved  it  next  in  pos¬ 
session  of  the  husband.  They  don’t  prove  it  in 


24 


her  possession.  They  don’t  prove  a  single 
■word  that  was  said  there  at  the  time  they  proved 
the  purchase  of  the  pistol.  They  show  a  homi¬ 
cide,  and  that  shortly  after  the  homicide  the 
pistol  was  found  in  the  hands  of  a  third  person. 
Now  that  is  all  the  evidence  there  is  in  this 
case  with  reference  to  the  pistol  ;  and  what  evi¬ 
dence  is  there  outside  of  that.  They  prove  that 
shortly  after  the  shooting  Fanny  Hyde  was  out 
in  the  hall  near  this  place.  They  prove  by 
other  witnesses  that  shortly  after  that  the  hall 
was  packed  full.  This  was  in  a  public  factory 
where  there  were  a  large  number  of  employes. 
They  prove  a  large  number  of  people  were  there 
immediately  after  the  transaction,  and  the  pris¬ 
oner  at  the'bar  is  only  one  of  the  persons  they 
have  proved  to  have  been  there.  Now  what 
else  have  they  proved?  They  proved  by  Mr. 
Pixley  that  the  prisoner's  brother  came  there 
and  made  the  remark,  waving  the  hand  toward 
the  prisoner,  “I  told  you  not  to  do  this,”  or 
some  such  remark.  According  to  this  testimony 
of  Pixley  the  hall  was  crowded,  and  people  were 
standing  within  three  feet.  Well,  now  suppose 
that  is  true  ;  assume  that,  have  we  got  the  mur¬ 
der  yet?  Have  we  got  a  murder?  Provided 
the  jury  come  to  the  conclusion  that  this  evi¬ 
dence  establishes  the  fact  that  she  shot  him,  I 
ask  where  is  there  a  particle  of  evidence  here 
from  which  the  jury  can  infer  that  she  intended 
to  take  his  life  deliberately?  Now  the  taking 
of  life  is  not  murder,  by  any  means.  Your 
honor  recoil  ects  the  case  of  the  People,  vs. 
M’Cann.  In  this  case  the  killing  was  admitted. 
The  burden  is  still,  say  the  Court,  “Is  still  the 
same,  and  it  remains  with  the  prosecution  to 
show  the  existence  of  these  requisite  elements 
which  constitute  the  crime  of  murder,  and  of 
these  the  intention  or  animus  is  the  principal.  ” 
Now  I  will  admit,  if  the  Court  please,  that 
there  may  be  a  case  where  the  simple  proof  of  the 
killing  itself  would  justify  the  inference  it  was 
done  with  intent.  For  instance  ;  Your  Honor 
sees  two  men  standing  at  a  distance.  One  de¬ 
liberately  draws  a  revolver  and  shoots  down  the 
other.  Now  when  they  have  proved  that  fact 
and  the  killing  of  the  man,  then  the  jury  may 
infer  it  was  done  deliberately,  and  the  accused 
is  called  upon  to  explain  why  it  was  done,  and 
rebut  that  inference.  But  unless  the  evidence 
show's  the  killing  to  be  done  under  circumstances 
that  justify  the  inference  that  it  was  done 
with  an  intent  to  take  life  they  have  utterly 
failed  to  make  out  a  case,  and  in  this  case  they 
have  no  proof  of  any  such  killing  at  all.  As¬ 
suming  now,  on  this  skeleton,  this  shadow  of  a 
case,  that  the  jury  may  infer  that  fact.  I  say 
that  don’t  establish  the  circumstances  under 
w’hich  it  was  done,  nor  enable  the  jury  to  say  it 
was  done  with  intent  to  take  life.  They  have 
shown  no  motive,  nor  the  first  element  that 
goes  to  constitute  the  crime  of  murder.  In 
overruling  the  chargejof  the  Court  below  it  was 
said  :  “The  doctrine  of  the  charge  proceeded  on 
the  idea  that  homicide  is,  per  se.  criminal,  that 
the  mere  destruction  of  human  life  by  the  act  of 
another  is,  without  any  other  circumstances, 
murder  or  manslaughter.”  Now'  that  was  the 
charge  of  the  Court  below,  and  the  Court  of  Ap¬ 
peals  expressly  repudiated  it ;  it  says  the  killing 


was  not  enough,  that  we  must  go  further  t 
the  proof  6hows  the  killing  was  done  und< 
cumstances  from  which  you  might  reaso: 
infer  there  w'as  an  interest  to  take  life. 
Court  said  here  that,  ‘  every  killing  was 
inal  per  se.  ’  Such  is  not  Hie  law.  The 
cious  purpose,  the  depravity  of  heart,  the 
ficient  understanding  and  the  will  must 
ever  actually  exist.  They  are,  each  of  th( 
much  the  essence  of  crime  as  the  act  of  k 
The  jury  must  conscientiously  believe  th 
ist  or  else  they  cannot  convict.  The  killin 
human  being  by  another  is  not  neces 
a  murder  or  manslaughter  ;  it  may  be  eitt 
cusable  or  justifiable,  and  may  have  be 
fected  under  either  of  those  conditions  rt 
to  by  elemental  writers  in  w'hich  the  wil 
not  join  with  the  act,  and  then  it  is  not  crin 

Now  I  submit  there  is  not  enough  h< 
this  evidence,  to  convict.  You  have  not 
nec&ssary  element  that  goes  to  constitu 
crime  of  murder  except  the  homicide  itse 
any  evidence  that  any  one  saw  this,  nor  t 
cumstances  under  w'hich  it  was  committe. 
the  rule  of  law’  is  that  the  party  is  presu: 
be  innocent  until  proven  guilty  ;  and  I 
there  is  no  evidence  of  the  circumstances 
which  it  w’as  committed,  the  lawr  assumes 
justifiable.  The  law  draws  the  inferem 
this  was  justifiable.  It  would  be  overt 
all  the  principles  of  criminal  law’  to  i 
this  a  murder  because  the  jury  come  to  t! 
elusion,  on  this  evidence,  that  this  prisoi 
the  killing,  although  that  is  not  proved 
suming  that  she  did  kill  the  deceased,  wl 
is  proven  ?  Although  nobody  saw  her,  al  I 
nobody  know's  the  circumstances  that  tra ' 
at  the  time  this  occurred  ;  although  ther  l 
motive  proven  at  all,  yet  you  infer  that  i 
it  deliberately,  intentionally,  and  is  PI 
murder.  The  law  don’t  presume  that,  1 1  a 
fully  submit  to  the  Court. 

Now  I  submit  that  under  this  evidel 
are  not  called  upon  to  make  any  defei. 
the  jury'  should  convict  under  this  evident  J 
Honor  would  set  aside  the  verdict  and  ( 
new  trial  on  the  spot,  without  any  su^l 
being  made  by  counsel  for  the  defense.  ^ 
talk  about  hanging  the  accused  on  evio 
this  kind !  Why,  if  it  was  a  case  involv 
betw'een  two  citizens  there  is  no  jury  in 
tendom  would  give  a  verdict  on  this 
in  favor  of  the  pai'ty  claiming  the  monl 
this  evidence  there  is  no  jury  in  Chrnfl 
would  take  $10  out  of  one  man’s  pots 
put  it  into  another  man’s  pocket.  On  4 
dence  you  ask  the  life  of  this  prisoner  Hj 
taken.  It  cannot  be  done.  When  the  I 
tion  come  into  court  and  ask  that  the  * 
this  prisoner  shall  be  yielded  up,  they  shj 
the  clearest,  most  indisputable  and  unmil 
right  under  the  law  to  take  that  bloojj 
cannot  guess  people’s  lives  away ;  yo’X 
infer  people’s  lives  away,  unless  uponfl 
tion  that  legally  justifies  the  inference^ 
say  in  this  case  there  is  nothing  but  iiH 
and  not  evidence  enough  for  an  infereu  B 
which  a  conviction  can  be  urged.  1^1 
fully  submit,  therefore,  that  we  are  nl  B 
upon  to  make  a  defense  in  this  case. 


25 


1  ■  COUBT  to  Mr.  BBITTON.  —Do  you  wish 
eke  any  remarks  ? 

I  BBITTON.— No,  sir. 
f  COUBT. — For  the  purposes  of  your 
da  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  all  matters 
suence  are  true.  It  appears  from  evidence 
t  part  of  the  prosecution  that  the  prisoner, 
enpany  with  her  brother— he  officiating — 
K  o  a  store  and  bought  a  pistol  shortly  be- 
!  jhis  occurrence  ;  the  brother  handed  it  to 
id  asked,  “Will  it  suit  you?”  That  pis- 
iithe  pistol  now  produced  in  court ;  that 
xis  the  weapon  handed  to  the  Police  Cap- 
1  t  the  station-house  within  an  hour  or 
*  ’ter  the  killing.  It  is  also  in  evidence 
t  the  time  of  the  killing  of  the  deceased, 
d 3r  by  his  own  hand  or  by  the  hand  of  some 
enerson,  this  prisoner  stood  there,  fixedly, 
tag  at  him  in  the  face,  and  her  brother  said 
le  “I  told  you  not  to  do  it,”  and  she  made 
rponse,  so  far  as  the  testimony  on  that 
n  is  concerned.  Now,  under  all  these  cir- 
isnces,  it  is  not  a  case  the  Court  can  take 
njae  jury.  The  Court  thinks  the  jury  are 
it  I  to  pass  on  this  question  of  the  guilt  or 
once.  The  prosecution  are  entitled  to  have 
o:)  the  jury  for  that  purpose.  The  motion, 
ce  re,  is  denied. 

TCourt  then  renewed  its  former  caution 
hjurors,  and  took  a  recess  for  one  hour. 
bCourt  reconvened  pursuant  to  adjourn- 


>HING  ON  THE  PAHT  OF 
THE  DEFENSE. 

h.  GATLIN. — If  the  Court  please, 

1  entlemen  of  the  jury: 
t  as  a  subject  of  serious  consultation 
>i  the  gentlemen  who  are  engaged  in 
aiing  the  prisoner,  in  case  the  Court 
jl'd  to  overrule  the  motion  made, 
3t  ?r  this  case  should  be  submitted  on 
ddence  of  the  prosecution  alone,  or 
■tar  you  should  go  into  the  entire  and 
atters  of  the  case.  We  have  con¬ 
ic,  gentlemen,  to  present  this  case  to 
full,  and  to  present  the  defense  in 
cse  as  fully  as  we  can.  And  gentle- 
a,  vast  and  overwhelming  as  is  the 
it  confided  to  me,  and  the  consequent 
jo  abilities  reposed  on  me,  I  meet  them 
'kly,  with  faith  in  the  righteousness 
ot  defense.  Clothed  in  the  armor  of 
h  nd  justice,  feeling  that  I  stand  on 
ife;  si ;  of  right  and  humanity,  believing 
t  am  defending  your  firesides  and 
ie,  3our  thresholds  and  mine,  believing 
1 1  ,m  advocating  innocence  and  virtue, 
c  isequent  domestic  integrity,  I  enter 


on  the  part  of  this  case  assigned  to  me,  not 
without  oppressive  anxiety,  but  with  the 
entire  approval  of  my  own  conscience  and 
with  that  integrity  of  purpose  that  makes 
me  feel  strong,  and  confident  of  the  result 
in  your  verdict. 

When  I  first  heard  of  this  case,  before  I 
knew  of  the  facts, — before  I  knew  any  of 
the  facts  of  the  case  as  counsel — I  did  not 
believe  that  in  the  eye  of  God  or  of  humani¬ 
ty  this  defendant  had  committed  a  crime. 
Before  I  knew  any  of  the  facts  leading  to 
this  act,  before  I  knew  any  of  the  circum¬ 
stances  leading  to  this  act,  before  I  knew 
any  of  the  previous  history  of  this  defend¬ 
ant,  I  did  not  believe  — it  was  against  every 
impulse  of  human  nature  to  believe  that 
this  defendant,  a  woman  of  tender  age, 
calmly,  coolly,  instigated  by  a  depraved, 
wicked  and  malignant  spirit,  committed 
murder.  I  believed,  and  still  believe,  that 
it  was  the  convulsion  of  a  mind  upon 
which  great  wrong,  outrage  and  provocation 
had  been  heaped.  I  know,  and  you  know, 
that  in  all  convulsions  in  the  material 
world  some  element  of  nature  must  have 
vent,  or  the  sea  and  air  and  earth  would  be 
commingled  in  one  indistinguishable,  cha¬ 
otic  mass;  and  so  I  believe  the  commission 
of  this  act  was  the  result  of  some  sudden, 
irresistible,  overpowering  impulse,  some 
convulsion  of  the  human  mind  as  irresist¬ 
ible  and  uncontrollable  as  the  decree  of 
fate.  And  so  it  was,  as  we  shall  prove. 
True,  she  is  charged  with  the  crime  of 
murder;  but,  as  you  have  heard  already, 
it  is  not  every  killing  of  a  human  being 
that  is  a  crime.  A  crime  is  an  act  against 
the  public  rights;  a  crime  is  an  act  against 
the  whole  community — perpetrated  against 
the  whole  community;  and  unless  the  kill¬ 
ing  of  a  human  being  comes  under  this 
definition  it  may  not  be  murder,  it  may 
not  be  a  crime.  True,  the  indictment  is 
presented  on  behalf  of  the  people.  It  is 
entitled  “  The  People  against  Fanny 
Hyde.”  Gentlemen,  I  can  show  to  you 
that,  notwithstanding  that  indictment 
may  have  been  properly  found  on  ex  parte 
evidence  before  the  grand  jury,  that  that 
indictment  is  false,  it  is  a  lie.  The  people 
of  this  country  or  of  this  State  are  not 


26 


tlie  real  prosecutors  of  Fanny  Hyde. 
Why,  gentlemen,  the  rule  is  inverted,  and 
the  people  are  the  defendants  in  this  case. 
Leave  it  to  the  spontaneous  sentiments  of 
the  people  of  this  city,  the  opinions  of  the 
mass,  the  'whole  community,  and  I  believe 
they  are  all  on  the  side  of  this  defendant; 
and  it  is  the  disagreeable  duty  of 
the  District  Attorney  and  the  family 
of  the  deceased  Mr.  Watson,  to  prosecute 
the  case.  And  right  here  I  want  to  say  one 
word  in  praise — I  want  to  pay  one  de¬ 
served  tribute — to  the  District  Attorney 
for  one  act  which  he  has  performed  in  this 
case.  Private  counsel — one  of  the  most 
famous  criminal  lawyers  in  this  or  any 
other  State — was  employed  by  the  friends 
of  the  deceased  to  help  prosecute  this  de¬ 
fendant  and  help  convict  her  and  put  a 
halter  around  her  neck.  A  large  retainer, 
$2,500,  was  paid  to  Mr.  Charles  S.  Spen¬ 
cer,  of  New  York,  to  help  prosecute  this 
case.  It  was  expected  be  would  take  a 
leading  and  active  part  in  the  prosecution; 
but  thanks  to  the  keen  appreciation  of  offi¬ 
cial  propriety — not  to  say  any  thing  of 
common  decency — the  District  Attorney 
peremptorily  refused  to  allow  him  to  take 
any  part  in  the  case  and  help  prosecute 
this  defendant.  I  say  all  thanks  to  Mr. 
Britton  for  this  act  of  common  justice  to 
this  defendant.  I  will  say  further,  there 
is  one  of  your  ablest  and  most  honorable 
lawyers  of  the  city  of  Brooklyn  to  whom 
a  retainer  of  $150  or  $200  was  sent  to  help 
prosecute  this  case;  all  honor  to  that  man 
for  spurning  that  money  and  sending  it 
back  to  Mr.  Spencer,  who  sent  it  to  him. 
But,  gentlemen,  does  not  that  show  a  won¬ 
derful  weakness  in  this  prosecution  some¬ 
where?  Does  not  that  show  this  Watson 
family  must  resort  to  some  extraordinary 
effort  to  convict  this  girl,  and  thereby  save, 
perhaps,  the  character  and  memory  of  the 
deceased?  The  District  Attorney,  as  you 
have  seen,  does  not  want  anybody  to  help 
him  in  this  case.  He  is  a  man  of  large 
ability  and  great  experience,  and  he  does 
not  want  any  outside  counsel  to  help  him 
try  a  case  which  official  duty  requires  him 
to  try.  He  is  just  entering  upon  his  duty 
as  District  Attorney.  It  is  not  improbable 


he  looks  forward  to  some  such  an 
tunity  as  this  to  make  a  brilliant  c 
of  his  official  career.  He  said  ye 
that  he  had  no  professional  pride 
matter.  I  know  it  is  impossible  fo 
to  occupy  that  position  without 
professional  pride  as  if  he  was 
counsel.  It  is  perfectly  consiste 
human  nature  that  he  should  hav 
in  this  case,  and  desire  to  make  an  < 
that  will  surround  him  as  a  shiel 
were,  all  through  his  official  care 
can  say — “I  may  be  defeated  in  soi 
of  lesser  importance,  but  I  can  | 
point  to  the  case  of  ‘  The  People  i 
Hyde  ’  with  pride,  and  as  a  crown ! 
rel  in  my  official  career.  ”  You  ma  i 
to  see  the  usual  case  of  the  law  offic  ] 
ecuting  a  defendant  for  crime,  tl  i 
tion  of  all  the  ingenuity,  the  exil 
every  power,  the  exercise  of  every  j 
the  exercise  of  every  resource  that  j 
sesses,  the  same  as  if  he  were  priva  j 
sel.  And,  gentlemen,  you  will  b » 
upon  to  stifle  your  emotions,  sti.) 
nobler  instincts  and  impulses  in  tl  | 
and  to  sit  there  like  statues  or  s 
marble,  without  hearts.  Appeals 
made  to  you  to  look  upon  this  d 
as  a  hardened  wretch — as  a  Kuloff 
committed  deliberate,  cold-blood 
der  for  gain.  Why,  gentlemen  (i 
were  twelve  professional  adulterer  aj 
of  twelve  honest  husbands,  if  j 
twelve  habitual  libertines  instead 
honorable  fathers  and  brothers,  i 
appeal  could  meet  a  response  in  ;ui 
soms.  If  you  could  look  upon 
struction  and  ruin  of  a  young  gii 
age  of  this  defendant  with  cooln  s  J 
indifference,  then,  perhaps,  such  ill 
would  meet  with  a  response  in  yoi h 
If  you  wTere  twelve  men  hired  by  e 
to  find  a  verdict  of  guilty;  if 
twelve  prosecutors,  celebrated  i 
utter  heartlessness  and  want  ol  hi 
sympathy;  if  you  were  twelve  e 
ers  anxiously  waiting  for  a  victi 
whose  neck  you  have  fixed  the 
you  were  twelve  savages  impatie 
ing  for  the  scalp  of  a  defenceless 
then  such  an  appeal  would  not  b 


I 


27 


ired  response,  and  this  trial  would 
ockery.  But,  thank  Heaven,  you 
bands  and  fathers,  and  you  cannot 
I  is  not  right  that  you  should — shut 
i'r  nobler  instincts :  you  should  bring 
:  exercise  of  this  case  every  feeling 
rj  faculty  that  God  has  given  you. 
u  e  intellectual  faculties,  you  have 
i;  senses,  and  you  have  moral  qual- 
y  i  should  bring  them  all  into  oper- 
,  deciding  a  case  like  this,  of  life 
lith.  And  gentlemen,  when  you 
yiir  seats  in  the  jury  box  in  a 
n  case  like  this,  yon  take  your 
t  ire  with  all  the  presumptions  in 
o  the  accused.  In  every  case  you 
xsume  the  accused  to  be  innocent 
nved  guilty,  much  more  must  you 
v  ere  that  poor,  weak  girl,  with  no 
s  iE  influence,  no  friends  of  wealth, 
tig  for  her  life  against  the  pros- 
g  ower  of  the  county  of  Kings,  aye, 
vole  State  of  New  York,  aided  with 
valth  of  the  family  of  the  deceased, 
rt  l,  gentlemen,  by  the  lackeys  and 
:r  which  always  hang  about  cor¬ 
al  in  the  rooms  of  such  a  building 
.  Why,  gentlemen,  I  tell  you  what 
-|,  he  friends  of  the  defendant  have 
leged  day  and  night  and  counsel 
ally  been  able  to  consult  with  wit- 
ffhout  its  being  known  outside . 
iv  t  have  been  sent  to  persons  under 
isc  of  charity  to  get  some  confes- 
f  this  defendant.  Snakes  have 
there  under  the  cloak  of  relig- 
enevolence,  so  that  they  could 
‘  nelamaging  statement  of  this  poor 
)®'  id  tell  you  what  I  know,  that  with 
■  oiaries  and  spies  in  jail  it  was  im- 
elrme  to  get  an  interview  with  my 
iseii  w  a  out  being  surprised  with  the 
iparition  of  some  person  who 
have  been  concealed  to  hear 
eke  va:  going  on.  Now,  gentlemen,  I 
t  say  in  behalf  of  the  District 
tw  ;y  hat  I  do  not  believe — I  know  he 
jjisHad  in  this  whatever  ;  but  I  do 

feeir 


®8ei 

.1 


ai;ci|c, 

ilty'-l 


t, 


same 


power  and  the  same 
3  in;  |e  which  secured  able  private 
l  a  a  heavy  price  was  at  the  bottom 
0  stigation  of  this  infamous  sys¬ 


tem  of  espionage.  Now,  under  these  un¬ 
favorable  circumstances  under  which  we 
a,re  laboring,  under  which  this  defendant 
enters  on  this  trial,  I  ask  you  not  to  stifle 
your  nobler  and  higher  instincts  and  emo¬ 
tions,  but  listen  to  it  like  men,  men  inter¬ 
ested  in  the  purity  and  in  the  existence  of 
our  social  and  domestic  circle.  Now,  gen¬ 
tlemen,  I  come  to  this  case. 

What  has  the  prosecution  proven  ?  Pre¬ 
cisely  what  we  offered  to  admit,  and  did 
admit,  until  they  rejected  our  offer,  and 
what  I  propose  to  admit  upon  the  thresh¬ 
old  of  my  discussion  in  the  case.  I  say 
I  propose  to  admit  all  they  have  proven 
in  the  case,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned — that 
is,  the  buying  of  this  pistol  some  time  be¬ 
fore  the  shooting,  the  carrying  of  it  on  that 
day, — if  you  please, — and  that  George  Wat¬ 
son  received  a  fatal  wound  from  that  pis¬ 
tol  in  the  hands  of  Fanny  Hyde.  I  pro¬ 
pose  for  the  sake  of  this  opening,  for  the 
sake  of  this  defense,  to  admit  all  of  that  in 
the  beginning.  But  I  do  say  that,  not¬ 
withstanding  we  admit  these  facts,  gentle¬ 
men,  I  preliminarily  assert  that  we  shall 
prove  to  you,  and  establish  to  your  entire 
satisfaction,  that  no  crime  was  committed 
in  this  act.  The  crime,  as  the  counsel  has 
started  out  in  this  case,  must  be  murder. 
There  can  be  no  compromise  on  the  middle 
ground  of  manslaughter.  We  stand  here 
to  defend  this  woman  of  the  charge  of 
murder.  You  must  acquit  her  aud  let  her 
go  free  and  untrammelled;  there  can  be 
no  compromise  in  the  case.  And,  gen¬ 
tlemen,  I  must  bring  to  your  minds  right 
here  a  suggestion  that  was  made  to  you 
by  the  District  Attorney,  not  an  unusual 
nor  uncommon  suggestion  made  in  the  trial 
of  murder.  He  says,  if  there  is  any 
doubt  about  this  you  can  find  your  verdict 
of  guilty  and  the  Governor  can  pardon. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — “  If  there  is  any 
doubt  !”  I  did  not  say  that. 

Mr.  CATLIN. — Gentlemen,  that  sug¬ 
gestion  was  made  to  you.  Every  gentle¬ 
man  knew  what  the  object  of  that  was — 
that  if  there  was  any  doubt  in  your  minds 
you  can  find  her  guilty,  and  the  Governor 
will  pardon.  Why,  gentlemen,  your  prov¬ 
ince  here  is 'higher  than  Governors,  higher 


28 


than  counsel,  higher  than  district  attor¬ 
neys,  and  higher  than  Courts,  higher  than 
Presidents.  You  are  the  men  who  are  to 
determine  what  shall  be  done  with  this 
prisoner.  We  ask  you  not  to  be  con¬ 
trolled  or  governed  by  any  such  monstrous 
suggestion  or  doctrine.  We  ask  you  to  be 
men,  and  if  you  have  any  doubt  in  this 
case,  that  doubt  goes  to  this  defendant 
instead  of  against  her,  as  the  Court  will  in¬ 
struct  you ,  and  you  will  acquit  her  like 
men. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  have  heard  the 
crime  of  murder  defined.  It  is  the  pre¬ 
meditated  killing  of  a  human  being  ;  some 
plan  must  be  laid.  The  old  common  law, 
the  definition  of  which  is  sufficient  for 
this  case,  is,  that  a  man  or  a  woman  must 
be  of  sound  mind  and  discretion,  and  un¬ 
lawfully  kill  a  human  being  in  the  peace  of 
the  commonwealth,  with  malice  and  fore¬ 
thought.  The  constituent  elements  are, 
a  sound  mind,  memory,  and  discretion. 
Second,  the  unlawful  killing  of  a  person 
who  himself  is  obeying  the  law  ;  he  must 
be  in  the  peace  of  the  commonwealth. 
Third,  and  at  the  bottom  of  the  whole, 
there  must  be  this  malice  aforethought. 
Now,  gentlemen,  in  this  case  you  must 
find  that  all  these  elements  exist.  They 
must  be  assumed  or  they  must  be  proven  ; 
but  you  must  believe  they  conscientiously 
exist  in  this  case.  If  one  is  absent,  if  there 
be  not  sound  mind  or  memory  in  the  case, 
or  if  the  killing  was  justifiable,  and  not 
unlawful ;  if  there  was  not  malice  in  the 
case — that  is,  if  the  act  was  not  done  under 
circumstances  showing  symptoms  of  a  de¬ 
praved  heart,  showing  a  wicked,  deprav¬ 
ed  and  malignant  spirit— you  cannot  con¬ 
vict.  The  elementary  writers  hold  that  there 
must  be  malicious  purpose.  Where  do 
you  find  it  in  this  case  ?  Depravity  of 
heart — where  do  you  find  depravity  of 
heart  ?  Each  must  exist,  each  is  as  much 
the  essence  of  the  crime  and  must  be  in 
the  case  as  much  as  the  killing.  You  can¬ 
not  separate  them  and  convict  a  man  or 
woman  of  murder.  Now,  what  have  they 
proven  ?  Where  have  they  proven  one 
iota  of  malicious  purpose  in  the  case  ? 
Have  they  assigned  any  motive  or  any 


cause  for  the  commission  of  thi 
Have  they  done  anything  going 
that  the  defendant  was  an  abandi 
son,  in  any  way,  shape  or  manne: 
they  done  anything  that  shows  t: 
is  depraved,  debased,  or  malignan 
ing  whatever.  You  cannot  stan< 
and  charge  a  woman  with  the 
murder  without  assigning  some 
motive.  Now  what  is  the  moth 
it  because  he  would  not  pay  her  h 
It  appears  she  was  in  his  employ 
because  there  was  any  difficulty  I 
them  of  an  ordinary  character- 
assign  any  such  motive  ?  Certs 
no  such  motive  could  be  assigns 
a  person  could  not  kill  ianotht 
such  reason  ;  you  would  say  in 
she  was  not  of  a  right  mind  bee  I 
was  no  adequate  motive  nor  a  1 
for  it  ?  People  don’t  commit  n  d 
such  reasons.  What  was  the  m< 

I  ask  ?  They  will  say,  perha] 
revenge.  Revenge  for  what  ?  .1 
light  break  in  on  your  minds  ?  ll 
the  truth  begin  to  dawn  in  this  l 
their  shadowy  showing  alread' 
you  see  enough  in  this  casetd 
what  a  weight  of  grief  must  1  < 
down  upon  this  frail  creature’ 1 
heart ;  that  this  act  was  perpeba 
a  weight  of  grief  that  could  not  t^< 
You,  as  husbands,  fathers,  br  « 
conceive  of  no  motive  of  reve;fli| 
defendant,  if  that  is  their  tl)(| 
they  must  assume  some  theory  <  tfcl 
ing  up  ot  the  case.  If  th  1 
theory — that  this  was  reveui- 
husbands  and  fathers  and  bih 
see  no  motive  of  revenge  except* 
honor,  the  loss  of  virtue,  the  lo « 
the  loss  of  heaven;  through  th  mi 
treachery  of  the  man  whom  sh«ai 
influence  of  all  these  causes,  s*« 
gentlemen,  if  you  go  home  toij 
your  daughter  tells  you  that 
has  ruined  her,  you  will  not  rit 
stinct  of  your  nature  will  not  a 
to  wait  a  moment  until  you  hi> 
her  dishonor  in  the  blood  of  If 
And,  if  stung  by  her  own  d*H 
avenges  that  dishonor  by  heo* 


29 


)  place  her  crime  in  the  category  of 
ibded  murder  ?  Why,  gentlemen, 
sier  very  case  if  they  say  this  was 
fi  revenge  ;  and  they  must  assume 
B  3  they  have  no  case  ;  and  they 


iw  a  motive  unless  it  was  for  some- 
that  kind.  On  their  own  show- 
ould  not  hesitate  to  submit  this 
)  >u  on  the  evidence  now  before  you. 
show  to  you  as  clear  a  defense 
ise  as  ever  shown  in  any  similar 
e  shall  make  it  as  plain  as  it  can 
Ijoe  made  upon  their  own  theory  of 
wf  sound  mind  and  memory — on 
tfeory  that  this  was  committed 
q  y — we  shall  show  to  you  that 
»v;  no  crime,  that  this  was  justifi- 
4  the  morning  of  the  commission 
.  ft,  we  shall  prove  to  you  that  the 
Lab  left  her  workshop  and  went 
stirs  to  a  retiring-room,  and  when 
if — the  deceased  following  her  out 
.i  ely — she  met  deceased  at  the 
f  Lie  stairs,  and  when  she  went  up 
ail  reached  the  top  he  suddenly 
o  her  with  violence,  in  an  indecent 
r  ad  insisted  upon  her  accompany  - 
m  an  improper  place  ;  and  they 
it  iggle  there  and  she  left  the  prints 
n  Is  upon  his  face,  as  we  shall  show 
i  y  reliable  testimony.  We  shall 
’c  the  scratches  on  his  face  were 
ry  he  defendant  in  this  struggle.  It 
iflbre  struggle  and  she  finally  suc- 
:  getting  away.  But  he  seized  oh 
u  and  there  it  was,  on  this  provoca- 
leuddenly  seized  a  pistol  and  shot 
fc ,  gentlemen,  if  this  be  so,  on  their 
e:y  of  sanity,  here  her  act  was  en- 
us  liable,  as  the  Court  will  instruct 
If  his  was  as  I  have  narrated — and 
te  ou  we  shall  prove  every  word  of 
1 1 1  have  related  it  substantially, 
e  as  seized  upon  by  this  man  at  the 
f  le  stairs,  insultingly,  violently, 
in  icent  manner,  she  broke  loose 
in  leaving  the  print  of  her  nails 
fa:  ;  that  he  seized  upon  her  again, 
sn  t  was  that  she  shot  him — I  say, 
e  this — and  we  shall  prove  it — 
how  on  their  own  theory  of  a 


sound  mind  that  she  was  justifiable,  and  no 
crime  was  committed.  Why,  gentlemen, 
the  meanest  worm  that  walks  the  earth  in 
human  form,  the  frailest  thing  that  revels 
night  and  day  in  the  meanest  dens  of  in¬ 
famy,  is  mistress  of  her  own  body  ;  and 
the  man  who  dares  to  lay  violent  hands  on 
that  body  against  her  will,  and  attempts  to 
use  it  against  her  will,  and  she  kills  him, 
she  is  justified  in  so  doing,  and  so  the 
Court  will  instruct  you. 

But,  'gentlemen,  if  women  must  shoot 
men  under  these  circumstances,  men  are 
in  danger  !  I  reply  that  is  the  law  under 
the  statute,  and  I  reply  such  men  are  in 
danger,  and  such  men  ought  to  be  in  dan¬ 
ger.  Men  whose  base  lust  will  spur  them 
to  such  acts  of  violence  are  a  disgrace  to 
humanity,  and  their  destruction  by  the 
victims  of  their  lust  is  a  proper  doom.  If 
we  find  a  man  deliberately  igniting  in  his 
neighbor’s  house  an  explosion  that  carries 
away  his  own,  he  has  nobody  to  blame  but 
himself.  If  a  man  administers  intoxicat¬ 
ing  poison  to  another,  and  that  other,  un¬ 
der  the  influence  of  that  poison,  rushes 
madly  on  him  and  takes  his  life,  can  it  be 
said  that  is  a  murder  ?  If  a  man  robs  a 
woman  of  her  virtue  and  inoculates  her 
soul  with  the  poison  of  guilt,  and,  under 
its  influence,  actuated  by  its  power,  she 
destroys  the  man  who  has  caused  this,  who 
can  say  that  she  shall  be  found  guilty  of 
the  crime  of  murder. 

So,  I  say,  on  their  own  theory,  if  we  es¬ 
tablish  this  state  of  facts,  you  will  not 
hesitate  a  moment  in  acquitting  the  defend¬ 
ant.  But,  in  justice  to  this  defendant, 
and  to  the  cause  of  humanity,  we  will  lay 
before  you  the  line  of  our  defense,  to  which 
we  were  just  as  irresistibly  driven  as  was 
the  bullet  from  which  Mr.  Watson  received 
his  fatal  wound.  We  have  conscientiously 
studied  this  case,  and  we  know,  and  you 
shall  know,  and  you  must  be  prepared  to 
hear  a  story  of  wrong  and  outrage  that 
scarcely  has  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  the 
human  race.  We  shall  demonstrate  to 
you,  as  clear  as  sunlight,  that  the  defend¬ 
ant  was  no  more  responsible  at  the  time  of 
firing  that  shot  than  the  pistol  from  which 


30 


it  was  fired.  Her  mind  was  stormed  in  its 
citadel,  and  laid  prostrate  under  a  stroke 
of  frenzy. 

In  former  times  the  defense  of  insanity 
was  looked  upon  with  great  disfavor,  with 
suspicion  and  doubt  ;  so,  in  former  times, 
the  victims  of  this  terrible  malady  were 
put  to  death  as  beset  with  devils,  thrown 
into  prisons,  and  beaten  with  great  inhu¬ 
manity.  To-day,  in  the  light  of  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century,  in  this  country  and  all 
over  the  civilized  world,  the  victims  of  this 
terrible  malady  are  treated  with  great  con¬ 
sideration,  and  the  defense  of  insanity, 
when  set  up  as  a  defense  of  crime,  is  received 
not  only  with  great  consideration,  but  is 
entertained  by  the  courts  with  tenderness 
and  respect.  In  the  progress  of  science 
the  phenomena  of  the  human  mind  has 
become  a  special  branch  of  study.  Men 
of  great  learning  and  ability  have  devoted 
their  lives  and  energy  to  the  multifarious 
operations  of  the  human  mind,  and  it  is  to 
their  authority,  and  it  is  their  evidence  in 
such  cases  as  this,  that  we  are  enabled  to 
arrive  at  the  truth,  and  we  are  enabled  to 
save  unaccountable  beings  from  becoming 
victims  of  judicial  murder.  In  this  con¬ 
nection  I  desire  to  read  some  extracts  from 
authorities  going  to  show  the  danger  of 
disregarding  the  plea  of  insanity  when  set 
up  in  any  such  case  as  this.  On  this  sub¬ 
ject  Chief  Justice  Parker,  of  New  Hamp¬ 
shire,  a  few  years  since,  in  his  charge  to 
the  Grand  Jury,  said  : 

“  The  public  presses,  in  giving  reports 
of  trials,  often  say  :  ‘  The  defense  was,  as 
usual,  insanity,’  or  make  some  other  ex¬ 
pression  indicating  that  this  species  of 
defense  is  resorted  to  in  desperate  cases 
for  the  purpose  of  aiding  in  the  escape  of 
criminals  from  justice.  Such  opinions  are 
propagated  in  many  instances  by  those 
whose  feelings  are  too  much  enlisted,  or 
whose  ignorance  respecting  the  subject 
is  too  great,  to  permit  them  to  form 
an  intelligent  and  dispassionate  judg¬ 
ment;  and  they  have  a  very  perni¬ 
cious  tendency,  inasmuch  as  they  excite 
prejudice  in  the  public  mind,  and  the  un¬ 
fortunate  individual,  who  is  really  entitled 
to  the  benefit  of  such  a  defense,  is  thereby 
sometimes  deprived  of  a  fair  and  impartial 
trial.  Again,  how  irreverent  and  almost 
impious  the  taking  of  human  life  under 


such  circumstances.  Whom  Gc 
visited  man  undertakes  to  judge  ai 
with  punishment,  as  if  human  reas 
deputed  to  revise  the  course  of  divi: 
idence.”  Justice  Edmonds,  in  th< 
Keim,  tried  for  murder  in  1846, 
charge  to  the  jury,  said  that,  “a 
the  plea  of  insanity  was  some  times  i 
as  a  cloak  for  crime,  it  was  unfor 
equally  true  that  many  more  perse 
unjustly  convicted  and  condemuei 
fer  the  punishment  for  crime,  ti 
their  unquestioned  insanity  ought 
been  an  unfailing  protection.” 

The  lamented  Dr.  Brigham,  in  t 
Annual  Report  of  the  Hartford 
says  :  “  I  do  not  know  of  a  single 
where  the  insanity  of  an  individ 
been  certified  by  those  well  inforr 
well  qualified  by  experience  with  th 
to  judge  on  such  a  subject,  that  t 
public  opinion  has  decided  to  beii 
while  I  know  many  instances  wl 
plea  has  been  disregarded,  which ' 
shown  ought  not  to  have  been.” 

Dr.  Bell,  Superintendent  of  the 
Asylum,  near  Boston,  says:  “  Tha' 
real  criminal  acquitted  on  the  sco 
sanity,  there  have  been  a  dozen 
executed.  ” 

Dr.  Woodward,  Superintenden 
Insane  Hospital  at  Worcester,  M 
setts,  says,  in  his  Annual  Report  f 
“  It  may  be  a  consolation  and  an 
agement  to  jurors,  in  faithfully  f 
out  their  own  sincere  convictioi 
law  and  evidence  in  such  cases,  j 
that  in  a  pretty  diligent  inquiry  e\ 
event  in  every  case  of  homicide  i 
England,  where  the  accused  has  i 
defense  of  insanity  set  up  for  Ij 
been  acquitted  on  that  ground,  it  i 
found  that  not  an  instance  has 
where  the  progress  of  time  has  ncj 
antly  verified  the  soundness  of  tli*l 
— a  fact  which  ought  forever  to  si : 
thoughtless,  but  perhaps  not  inco 
tial  intimations  always  presented! 
cases,  that  insanity  is  set  up  as  th  1 
sort  of  a  desperate  defense.” 

Now,  gentlemen,  after  hearii| 
authorities  of  great  and  good  ^ 
not  well  to  listen  to  the  mad  ravini 
ignorant  and  unskilled  against  « 


31 


of  such  a  defense  as  that  set  up 
i  case.  Now,  that  you  may  better 
ate  and  understand  the  facts  of  the 
:  going  to  show  insanity  in  the  de- 
1,  I  desire  to  read  to  you  some 
:  of  authority  on  that  subject,  and 
-ally  on  the  subject  of  insanity, 
Las  transitoria  mania ,  or  tempo- 
ilanity.  I  read  from  Dr.  William 
:mond  : 

Ire  is  a  form  of  insanity,  which,  in 
1  mating  act  is  extremely  temporary 
i.aracter,  and  which,  in  all  its  mani- 
iis,  from  beginning  to  end,  is  of 
Ration. 

b  species  of  mental  aberration  is  well 
d,o  all  physicians  and  medical  jurists 
iire  studied  the  subject  of  insanity. 

I  authors  it  has  been  variously  desig- 
is  transitoria  mania,  ephemeral 
-temporary  insanity  and  morbid 

ay  be  exhibited  in  the  perceptional, 
l  ual,  emotional  or  volitional  form, 
saeral  mania. 

E  exciting  causes  of  temporary  insan- 
numerous.  It  may  be  induced  by 
3  ienic  influences,  such  as  improper 
;:posure  to  intense  heat,  cold,  or 
csss,  or  to  a  noxious  atmosphere  ; 

L  ie  physical  exercise,  by  disease  of 
ijt,  by  blows  upon  the  head  or  other 
•  the  body,  by  certain  general  and 
c  Leases,  by  the  abuse  of  alcoholic 
s  by  the  ingestion  of  certain  drugs, 

i  opium,  belladonna  and  hasheesh, 
l  ssive  intellectual  occupation,  by 
E  leep,  and  above  all,  by  great  emo- 
i.sturbances.  Among  these  latter  : 

ii  excitement,  grief,  disappoint- 
Etion,  and  especially  anxiety,  by 
■  lie  mind  is  kept  continually  on  the 
b  tortured  by  apprehensions,  doubts 
i  ;ertainties,  by  which  it  is  worn 
r  >re  surely  than  by  the  most  terri- 
aties.  The  predisposing  causes  are 
end  in  the  individual  as  an  inherent 
fiis  organization.  They  consist  in 
3  tary  tendency  to  insanity,  or  to 
c  ler  profound  affection  of  the  ner- 
6  hem,  or  of  an  excitable  nervous 
!]  ment  which  is  incapable  of  resist- 
■('3  morbid  influences  which  persons 
Lgmatic  disposition  would  easily 
;;  d.  Thus  all  men  are  not  affected 
),  disturbing  causes,  because  all  men 
>1  :ast  in  the  same  physical  or  mental 
1  A  circumstance  which  will  pro- 
J  anity  in  one  person  will  scarcely 
t  i  equanimity  of  another. 

h  immediate  cause  of  temporary  in¬ 


sanity  is  the  disease  itself,  of  which  the 
mental  aberration  is  simply  the  manifesta¬ 
tion.  No  fact  in  medical  science  is  more 
elearly  established  than  this  of  the  action 
of  the  emotions  over  the  circulation  of  the 
blood  in  the  brain.  This  form  of  insanity 
is  known  as  transitory  mania. 

‘ 1  It  may  be  defined  as  a  form  of  insanity 
in  which  the  individual,  with  or  without 
the  exhibition  of  previous  notable  symptoms, 
and  with  or  -without  obvious  exciting  cause, 
suddenly  loses  the  control  of  his  will,  during 
which  period  of  non-control  he  commonly 
perpetrates  a  criminal  act,  and  then  as 
suddenly  rec'overs,  more  or  less  completely, 
his  power  of  volition. 

“Attentive  examination  will  always  re¬ 
veal  the  existence  of  symptoms  precursory 
to  the  outbreak  which  constitutes  the 
culminating  act.  Though  they  may  be  so 
slight  as  to  escape  superficial  examination.  ” 

Dr.  A.  Devergie,  one  of  the  most  emi¬ 
nent  alienists  in  France,  in  a  paper  read 
before  the  Imperial  Academy  of  Medicine, 
entitled  “  Transitory  Homicidal  Mania  ; 
where  does  Reason  End  or  Mania  Begin,” 
in  the  Journal  of  Psychological  Medicine 
and  Mental  Pathology,  No.  xvi,  October, 
1859,  p.  says  : 

“  Those  physicians  who  have  devoted 
themselves  to  the  treatment  of  insanity  ad¬ 
mit  that  beside  dementia,  mania,  andmono- 
omania,  there  exists  an  instantaneous,  tran¬ 
sient  insanity,  which  they  call  transitory, 
and  as  the  result  of  which  an  individual, 
until  then,  in  appearance  at  least,  of  sound 
mind,  commits  suddenly  a  homicidal  act, 
and  returns  as  suddenly  to  a  state  of  reason. 
It  would  be  easy  to  quote  a  hundred  authors 
of  recognized  pre-eminence  in  psychologi¬ 
cal  medicine,  to  the  effect  that  such  an  affec¬ 
tion  as  temporary  insanity  really  exists. 
The  authorities  on  medical  jurisprudence 
are  likewise  decided  upon  this  point,  and 
the  fact  is  accepted  every  day  by  courts  of 
law.  It  is  unnecessary,  therefore,  to  ad¬ 
duce  further  support  to  the  doctrine.  The 
emotions  are  also  subject  to  insane  exag¬ 
geration,  through  the  influence  of  motives 
which  act  slowly,  but  with  constantly  in¬ 
creasing  force.  Thus  a  mother  is  affected 
with  emotional  insanity  from  the  fact  that 
her  son  or  daughter  has  become  dejjraved 
or  criminal.  She  struggles  against  the 
consciousness  that  her  hopes  are  blasted, 
but  at  last  the  intellect  and  the  will  yield, 
or  settled  melancholy  predominates  in  all 
her  thoughts,  and  she  commits  suicide, 
unable  longer  to  bear  up  in  the  unequal 
conflict.  Here  there  is  no  delusion,  no 
error  of  judgment,  but  simply  an  inability 


32 


to  apply  her  reasoning  powers  to  the  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  subject,  or  to  exercise 
her  will  against  the  overpowering  emotion 
that  renders  her  life  a  burden.” 

Now,  gentlemen,  it  seems  to  me  that 
these  authorities  establish  the  fact  of  the 
existence  of  a  species  of  insanity,  known  as 
temporary  insanity,  impulsive  insanity,  or 
mania  iransiloria,  where  an  act  is  performed 
irresistibly  and  under  uncontrollable  influ¬ 
ences.  Why,  gentlemen,  all  see  it  every 
day.  We  can  hardly  look  at  a  public 
journal  but  what  we  read  of  the  melancholy 
death  of  some  unfortunate  individual  by 
his  own  hand.  No  person  has  seen  any¬ 
thing  strange  in  his  appearance,  or  unusual 
in  his  conduct,  and  he  deliberately  buys 
poison,  or  a  pistol,  and  ends  his  life  by 
his  own  hand,  and  all  the  world  cries,  “A 
case  of  temporary  insanity,”  and  there  is 
no  doubt  about  it.  If  Fanny  Hyde  had 
died  by  her  own  hand,  on  that  morning, 
insiead  of  having  killed  her  evil  genius  ;  if 
she,  instead  of  Watson,  had  been  picked 
up  at  the  bottom  of  those  stairs,  the  report 
would  have  been — “Died  by  her  own  hand 
in  a  fit  of  temporary  insanity.”  There 
would  have  been  no  question  about  buy¬ 
ing  a  pistol  and  carrying  it  two  weeks. 
Everybody — physician  and  layman — would 
have  said,  “A  case  of  temporary  insanity.” 
“Insane,  insane,”  would  have  been  the 
cry.  There  would  have  been  no  mistake 
about  it.  The  coroner’s  jury  would  have 
had  a  short  sitting,  and  they  would  have 
returned  a  verdict  of  “Death  from  tempo¬ 
rary  aberration  of  mind  ;  ”  and  if  Watson’s 
relations  to  her  had  been  understood,  as 
they  shall  be  understood,  by  you,  all  the 
world  would  have  cried  out  :  “  Kill  him, 
kill  the  murderer  and  seducer  of  Fanny 
Hyde.”  Brooklyn  would  be  too  hot  for 
him.  There  would  have  been  no  doubt 
about  her  insanity,  there  would  be  no 
doubt  about  her  temporary  aberration  of 
mind.  Men  would  not  have  quibbled 
about  her  buying  a  pistol  two  or  three 
weeks  before  and  her  carrying  it  that 
morning.  They  would  have  said  that  she 
died  while  temporarily  laboring  under  in¬ 
sanity.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  say  that,  in 
this  case,  the  act  itself  is  the  best  and 


clearest  evidence  of  insanity,  and  on  | 
might  read  to  you  authorities  shd 
where  there  is  no  other  evidence,  t 
itself  is  the  best  evidence  that  the  m 
the  person  was  unsound. 

Have  they  proved  a  particle  of  ma! 
purpose  toward  the  deceased  ?  No. 
they  wish  us  to  account  for  the  pu 
and  carrying  of  the  pistol.  On  the 
ing  of  this  occurrence,  the  condi 
Fanny  Hyde  was  notably  strange 
looked  wildly,  stared  vacantly,  a 
great  distress  she  cried  out — “  Oh, 

I  was  dead.”  On  that  morning  thj 
prove  no  malice,  no  word,  no 
against  Watson.  So  I  can  argue 
and  to  this  Court,  that  we  have  I 
reason  to  suppose  that  she  bouglj 
pistol  and  had  it  that  morning  f  I 
pui-pose  of  self-murder,  than  the}  j 
that  she  carried  it  for  the  purpose  < 
ing  Watson,  from  the  probabilities' 
case.  It  was  in  a  public  place,  in  l 
daylight,  in  the  middle  of  the  dad 
public  hall- way,  opening  upon  an 
lie  street,  that  this  act  was  comil 
Now,  I  ask  you  if  that  is  th  \ 
murderers  generally  do  business  ?  W  J 
show  to  you — and  they  came  ver« 
showing  it  to  you  by  one  of  their  la  1 
nesses — that  at  the  bottom  of  thesdi 
this  defendant  was  over  the  corpse  c  J 
son,  wringing  her  hands  in  great  t 
Do  criminals  have  that  emotion  wlb 
premeditated  murder  ?  Women  wi  ll 
malice  in  their  hearts — is  that  the  w:  i 
usually  do  ?  Do  criminals  delib  )1 
walk  to  their  constituted  authoriti  I 
deliver  themselves  up,  and  the  instil 
with  which  they  perpetrated  the  act  ' 
murderers  do  that  ?  That  is  jus! 
they  don’t  do.  And  I  may  say  riglb| 
that  the  evidence  is  that  this  pisl  ' 
bought  two  or  three  weeks  befo  I 
commission  of  the  act.  There  were  b 
dred  opportunities  in  which  she  con  b 
shot  him  ;  places  better  protecte  I 
places  murderers  more  likely  woul  I 
chosen.  Why,  gentlemen,  there  isoj 
element  in  this  case  but  shows  thj 
theory  of  the  defense  is  the  true  oi»( 
that  this  woman,  at  the  time  she  c  n 


33 


lihat  deed,  was  entirely  irresponsible, 
dannot  be  convicted  of  crime.  At  any 
jt  if  you  have  any  doubt  about  it,  that 
ut  must  be  construed  in  favor  of  the 
f(  dant.  We  think  we  can  prove  by 
r;3stimony,  as  clear  as  can  be,  that  the 
ft  dant  was  insane  at  the  time  ;  but  if 
<n  establish  a  doubt  about  it,  that  is 
®1?h  tor  us,  and  you  must  give  us  the 
a  it  pf  the  doubt.  Judge  of  this  case 
o  our  theory  and  facts  as  imparted  to 
mnd  I  think  you  will  have  no  trouble 
aning  to  a  very  prompt  conclusion. 
i£)ur  duty  to  lay  before  you  all  the  evi- 
$v,  and  we  shall  now  proceed  to  give 
yi  the  history  of  the  defendant. 

?;iny  Hyde  was  born  in  Nottingham, 
gnd,  a  little  more  than  eighteen  years 
3.  At  the  age  of  four  years  she  was  left 
•tjkrless.  Gentlemen,  in  the  words  of 
it  eautiful  song, 

What  is  home  without  a  Mother?” 

‘  other!”  It  is  the  sweetest  and  most 
bring  word  in  the  English  language. 
>ngs  up  to  our  minds  the  most  delight- 
r  niniscences.  What  a  world  of  music 
ii  that  word !  What  forms  of  poetry 
i  that  word  !  “  Motherless  !”  What 

urast !  It  turns  light  into  darkness  ; 
:fco  sadness.  What  a  dark,  gloomy 
ej  it  has  ;  a  cold,  skeleton  sound,  that 
o:  and  re-echoes  through  the  cham- 
sf  the  heart  like  the  hollow  resonance 
tl  tomb.  In  that  one  word  is  Fanny 
do  fate.  If  that  sainted  mother,  that 
d  earted  mother  had  lived,  Fanny 
di  would  not  have  been  on  trial  for  her 
1-day.  She  would  have  been  edu- 
3c  to  avoid  the  adulterer;  her  tender 
irtand  mind  would  have  been  disci- 
ie  to  have  saved  her  from  the  wiles  and 
tc  :ry  of  the  seducer.  At  ten  years  of 
f  e  came  to  this  country  and  com- 
acl  working  in  a  factory,  and,  of 
k  after  that  she  had  very  little  time 
D  ntal  culture  ;  yet,  so  anxious  was 
t<  oecome  educated  and  become  intel- 
n  she  actually  attended  night  school, 
ade  commendable  progress.  She 
nt  to  Sunday  School  and  went  to 
and  was  noticed  for  her  progress 
P'priety  of  conduct.  We  shall  divide 


>  ^ 
ir< 


the  history  of  Fanny  Hyde  in  two  chap¬ 
ters.  The  first  covers  that  part  of  her  life 
prior  to  her  acquaintance  with  Watson, 
and  the  other,  after  her  acquaintance  with 
Watson.  We  shall  trace  her  day  by  day, 
night  by  night,  week  by  week,  year  by  year, 
up  to  the  time  she  became  acquainted  with 
Watson.  The  first  will  be  a  bright  and 
beautiful  chapter,  and  the  second  begins 
in  gloom  and  ends  in  darkness.  Full  of 
nerve,  quick,  active,  of  rather  an  impatient 
temperament,  we  shall  show  to  you  she 
was  one  of  the  most  affectionate  and  lov¬ 
ing  of  natures.  She  had  a  pure  and  very 
affectionate  heart.  She  was  very  fond  of 
children,  and  never  was  so  happy  as  when 
affectionately  caressing  them.  She  never 
was  permitted  to,  and  never  did  receive 
the  company  of  young  men  ;  she  never 
was  permitted  to  go  out.  We  can  show 
to  you,  by  whole  families  who  have  known 
her  for  months  and  years,  with  whom  she 
has  lived,  that  up  to  the  time  she  made  the 
acquaintance  of  Watson  she  was  pure,  she 
was  chaste,  she  was  anything  that  could  be 
desired  in  a  girl  of  her  age.  We  shall 
show  to  you  that  she  was  a  young  girl  of 
great  industry,  and  so  thorough  and  atten¬ 
tive  to  her  business  that  she  became  marked 
in  her  vocation.  She  had  no  equal.  We 
shall  show  to  you  by  her  Sunday  School 
teacher  and  superintendent,  who  are  here 
and  knew  her  for  a  long  time,  and  who  I 
believe  is  superintendent  of  the  same  school 
now  that  she  attended  before  she  knew  this 
man  Watson,  and,  in  fact,  some  time  after, 
we  shall  show  by  these  parties  that  she  at¬ 
tracted  attention  for  her  propriety  of  con¬ 
duct.  She  was  everything  that  was  attrac¬ 
tive  in  a  young,  pure,  virtuous  female. 
Gentlemen,  so  far  you  don’t  see  anything 
of  the  murderer  or  anything  of  which 
murder  is  made. 

But,  gentlemen,  now  begins  the  second 
chapter,  dark  and  painful.  I  almost  trem¬ 
ble  when  I  think  of  it.  I  am  filled,  gen¬ 
tlemen,  knowing  it  as  I  do,  with  the  most 
fearful  and  painful  emotions.  I  almost 
falter  in  my  professional  duty  here  when  I 
am  compelled  to  speak  of  it.  It  was  a  sad, 
it  was  a  terrible  chapter  in  her  life,  as  we 
shall  show  to  you.  At  the  age  of  fifteen 


34 


years  she  ■went  to  work  for  Watson,  a  pure 
girl — a  pure,  virtuous  girl.  In  less  than 
six  months  she  was  ruined  and  destroyed — 
so  far  as  she  could  be  by  the  loss  of  virtue. 
You  will  hear  of  a  sin  more  damning,  a 
scene  of  outrage  greater  than  any  you 
have  ever  heard  of  or  read  of.  At  that 
time  Fanny  Hyde  was  just  budding  into 
lovely  maidenhood.  She  was  as  fair  and 
comely  to  look  upon  as  any  of  her  sex; 
round,  rosy  cheeks,  full  symmetrical  form, 
in  voice,  manner,  conduct,  shape — every¬ 
thing  that  could  be  desired  in  one  of  her 
years  was  she.  She  attracted  attention  by 
those  charms,  and  Watson  was  not  slow  to 
see  them.  He  looked  upon  her  with  libid¬ 
inous  heart  and  lustful  desire.  Among  all 
his  female  employees  Fanny  Hyde  was  the 
fairest.  She  was  the  one  he  determined  to 
make  his  victim,  and  the  cream,  perhaps,  of 
his  harem.  He  watched  his  opportunity 
and  one  day  he  found  her  in  the  shop 
alone:  and  there  they  were,  the  motherless 
victim,  and  Watson  together.  And  right 
here  I  desire  on  the  part  of  my  associates 
and  the  defendant  and  myself  to  disclaim 
any  desire  to  blacken  the  character  or  the 
memory  of  Mr.  Watson,  any  more  than  as 
he  is  an  important  fact  in  the  case.  Much 
less  do  we  desire  to  add  one  single  pang  to 
his  already  terribly  afflicted  wife  and  chil¬ 
dren.  They  have  been  afflicted  by  a  severe 
dispensation  and  we  do  not  desire  to  say 
one  word  that  will  injure  them  or  their 
feelings.  If  we  could  go  to  them  to-day 
and  break  iu  on  their  private  anguish  and 
ask  them  whether  they  most  mourn  for  the 
death  or  loss  of  character,  and  they  will 
tell  you  they  would  rather  have  seen  him 
die  a  thousand  deaths  by  bullet  or  disease 
than  to  see  him  die  at  the  hands  of  an  out¬ 
raged  woman  whom  he  had  ruined  and 
persecuted.  “Oh,  we  could  have  drank 
the  cup  if  more  than  bitterness  were  not 
at  the  bottom.” 

But  there,  locked  in  that  room,  he  ac¬ 
complished  his  purpose;  he  left  the  poison 
of  his  teeth  and  the  slime  of  his  trail.  He 
planted  a  seed  that  brought  forth  its  legiti¬ 
mate  fruit  two  years  afterward  on  this  fatal 
day  in  January,  1872.  He  robbed  her  of 
that  jewel  of  every  woman — her  virtue, 


and  innoculated  her  soul  with  the  poi  a 
ous  fires  of  guilt.  Oh,  gentlemen,  no  ’  i 
der  that  darkness  covered  the  earth  t<| 
Ihe  voice  of  the  Lord  was  heard  in  it 
garden  in  the  morning  ;  no  wonder  the  u 
turned  to  a  great  ball  of  blood,  when  ?t 
heeded  the  voice  of  the  devil.  No  wo  a 
the  skeletons  of  the  charred  bones  grii  id 
when  Zelica,  amid  the  flames  of  deca  if 
mortality  and  the  flickering  death  hiti 
around  her  soul  when  she  took  the  (i 
oath,  in  hell’s  own  language  framei  t< 
be  the  bride  of  the  great  Mokana,  kt 
Prophet  Chief,  that  when  she  had  ne 
to  reflect  on  the  horror  of  the  deedoii 
begun  to  struggle  with  her  soul,  .a' 
reason  was  dethroned  and  she  dieitoj 
her  own  hand.  Will  some  cynical,  1  rt- 
less  wretch  say  to  himself  “  Why  did  in- 
ny  Hyde  submit,  why  did  she  not  is: 
to  the  bitter  end  ?  ”  Why,  gentle  ;n, 
angels  have  fallen.  Here  was  wealth,  si- 
tion,  age  and  power,  battling  on  its  ,wii 
foot  stool  with  a  young,  timid,  half  f  ht- 
ened  girl.  Why,  the  relation  of  mastt  in. 
servant  existed,  which  made  itmuch  ore 
easy  for  him  to  accomplish  his  piu  <se. 
Think  of  it :  a  man  in  his  position,  ii  ead 
of  throwing  a  shield  around  the  vir  ;of 
his  young  girls,  deliberately  makes  dial 
position  a  means  of  ruining  them,  ‘on 
this  time  to  the  lime  of  the  fatal  si  .,<* 
shortly  preceding  it — the  accused  w  fol¬ 
lowed,  threatened,  persecuted  by  W  ion, 
who,  in  this  way  kept  up  a  crimina  nti- 
macy  with  her,  dogged  her  day  and  ighi 
and  publicly  manifested  his  crimina  iei 
At  one  time  she  was  engaged  in  perfcaing 
a  part  at  an  entertainment  in  a  Met  'dial 
Church,  and  he  went  there,  and  wlii  sbf 
was  on  the  stage  he  threw  her  a  bou<  et  of 
flowers.  It  was  so  unusual  a  thin^n  ‘ 
church  that  it  became  the  talk  of  the  hgs- 
borhood.  It  was  reprobated,  they  dn« 
understand  it  exactly.  But,  gentJi^- 
don’t  you  see,  it  gives  you  an  insig  into 
the  character  of  Watson  and  his  relat  ts  to 
this  poor  girl.  And,  gentlemen,  we  no* 
piece  of  evidence  here,  which  we  sUlUl 
troduce  to  you,  that  is  a  disgraceful  n  itu-lf 
for  a  man  of  his  age  and  position. 
he  sits,  between  two  of  his  younge  slw? 


35 


!  Is,  in  a  photograph  gallery,  with  a  hand 
;each  over  his  shoulder.  One  of  these, 
il  the  loveliest  one — for  then  she  was 
rely — is  Fanny  Hyde.  Think  of  it,  think 
.it,  gentlemen,  men,  fathers,  and  hus- 
:ids.  Forty-five  years  of  age,  his  wife  at 
distance,  away  from  his  family,  going  to 
. agnerreian  galleryjand  spending  his  time 
i  ndicated  in  that  picture.  Why  gentle- 
in,  if  any  one  can  now  doubt  the  charac- 
t  of  this  man — that  he  was  a  cold  blooded 
i  ucer  of  innocent  girls,  I  should  like  to 
;>wby  what  process  your  minds  arrive  at 
It  conclusion.  That  weighs  a  ton  in  this 
!is.  We  shall  show  to  you  that  through 
1 1  criminalintimacy  she  became  pregnant, 
il  shall  show  to  you  that  he  furnished  her 
o  Heine  and  drugs  which  brought  on  her 
oistrual  period.  We  shall  show  to  you 
h  from  that  time  her  health  began  to  fail, 
ra  that  time  her  color,  which  was  a 
uminent  characteristic  in  her,  began  to 
a  ;;  her  body  began  to  diminish,  and  we 
bl  show  that  about  fifteen  months  after 
b  time  he  seduced  her,  she  met  this  young 
m,  Hyde,  and  after  a  short  court-ship 
a  ried him.  Here  was  a  crisis.  She  had 
u  1  honestly,  she  had  tried  with  all  her 
'Cer,  she  had  to  overcome  her  slavish 
ofition  and  leave  this  man,  but  she  was 
ible  to  do  it,  as  you  can  well  understand, 
n  of  observation,  intelligence  and  expe- 
uce.  But  here  was  a  crisis.  Here  was 
cance  for  a  new  departure.  She  had 
n  nderstanding  with  that  man,  Watson, 
i'Ci  that  time  that  he  should  leave  her  to 
e  husband  to  spend  the  residue  of  her 
f'  in  fidelity  to  him  and  herself;  and  he 
uhis  hand  on  the  Bible  deliberately  and 
we  that  he  never  would  molest  her 
g:i.  But  to  a  man  who  would  puH  vir- 
« down,  an  oath  had  no  sanctity.  The 
ufcity  of  the  marriage  relation  had  not 
Q<  gh  in  it  to  prevent  him  from  gratify- 
lgiislust;  and  by  the  same  old  power — 
01  can  understand  it — and  by  threats  of 
SI  sore,  he  accomplished  his  purpose 
g£i  after  that  marriage.  She  so  brooded 
ve;  it,  it  so  affected  her  mind  that  she 
nsf:y  unbosomed  herself  to  her  husband — - 
>1<  him  about  it.  They  confronted  this 
idler  and  he  begged  for  the  sake  of  his 


wife  and  children  that  the  occasic 
pass  by;  and  again  he  swore  that 
would  molest  her  more.  But  a 
tlemen,  by  the  same  power,  by 
old  influence,  by  reminding  he 
past,  that  he  held  her  reputatic 
end  of  his  tongue,  and  could  blast 
world  as  he  already  had  blasted  it  to  C 
again  accomplished  his  object.  Do 
some  one  say,  “  Why  should  she  stay 
and  permit  this  to  be  done  ?”  Go 
yonder  gilded  palaces  of  hell,  where 
fairest  of  onr  land  are  sacrificed  ;  go  in 
the  rural  charnel  houses,  filled  with  tht 
skeletons  of  the  lost  souls  of  creatures  ; 
speak  to  one  of  those  frail  creatures ;  ask 
her  why  she  came  there  and  why  she  don’t 
leave  ;  and  then,  if  your  question  is  not 
answered,  I  don’t  know  how  to  answer  it. 
But  I  will  tell  you,  gentlemen,  it  was  be¬ 
cause  he  threatened  to  go  wherever  she 
went ;  because  he  threatened  to  ruin  her 
reputation.  Her  parents  and  relatives, 
although  poor,  were  respectable  ;  and, 
with  the  exception  of  her  husband  and 
this  man  Watson,  she  was  respectable  and 
respected  by  all.  It  was  for  this,  among 
other  reasons,  that  she  did  not  leave  him. 
Gentlemen,  conscience  was  at  work.  She 
brooded  over  her  misfortunes.  She  brooded 
over  her  condition  of  servitude  to  this 
man  until  her  life  actually  became  too 
heavy  for  her  to  bear.  She  became  re¬ 
duced  in  body.  She  fell  away  from  125  to 
95  pounds.  Her  nervous  system  was  bro¬ 
ken  down,  and  on  three  years  of  accumu¬ 
lating  horrors,  with  ail  of  these  three  dis¬ 
posing  causes  weighing  down  on  her  mind, 
her  soul,  her  heart,  is  it  any  wonder  that 
on  the  morning  of  this  occurrence  she 
stared  wildly,  she  looked  vacantly,  that  she 
said,  standing  by  the  stove,  “I  wish  I  was 
dead  ?”  Is  it  a  wonder  that  she  contem¬ 
plated  self-destruction  on  that  morning? 
Why,  gentlemen,  if  girls  disappointed  in 
their  affections  commit  suicide,  if  quiet, 
orderly  men  who  meet  with  reverses  in 
business  brood  over  those  losses  until  their 
minds  become  overturned  and  they  take 
their  own  lives,  if  Preston  King,  rolling 
in  luxury  and  wealth,  occupying  a  high 
position — Collector  of  the  Port  of  New 


36 


mid  be  so  overcome  by  political 
\at  be  should  drown  himself  in 
•iver  under  temporary  insanity, 
lous,  is  it  strange,  that  this  poor 
,  laboring  under  those  untold 
joining  in  contact  with  the  author 
liseries  on  that  morning  under  the 
.ances  that  we  shall  prove  to  you — 
/onder  that  reason  should  have  left 
>ne  and  that  she  should  have  strick- 
own  the  author  of  those  miseries 
woes  ?  In  addition  to  these  predis- 

;sing  causes,  we  shall  show  to  you  that 
he  has  hereditary  insanity  :  her  grand¬ 
father  died  insane,  committed  suicide 
while  insane. 

On  that  question  I  desire  to  read  from 
Marc.  Yol.  1,  page  285: 

“  Hereditary  predisposition  deserves  to 
be  placed  at  the  head  of  the  causes  of  in¬ 
sanity,  for  it  plays  so  marked  a  character 
in  the  production  of  this  malady  that 
whenever  there  is  a  possibility,  in  a  medi¬ 
co-legal  investigation,  of  demonstrating 
its  existence,  it  is  sufficient  almost  of  itself 
to  establish  the  reality  of  a  lesion  of  the 
understanding,  or  to  weaken  considerably 
the  possibility  of  its  being  feigned.” 

We  shall  show  to  you  that  the  grand¬ 
father  of  this  defendant  died  while  under 
the  influence  of  temporary  insanity.  We 
shall  introduce  witnesses  to  show  to  you — 
men  who  are  experienced  in  detecting  and 
considering  insanity ;  we  shall  show  to  you 
that  on  this  morning  the  defendant  was 
insane,  therefore  not  responsible  for  what 
she  committed.  We  shall  also  show  an¬ 
other  important  fact  illustrating  causes 
leading  to  this  act.  Her  periods  of  men¬ 
struation  are  epochs  in  her  life,  almost  up¬ 
setting  her,  they  are  so  severe.  We  will 
show  to  you  that  that  is  a  very  strong  and 
powerfully  predisposing  cause  to  this  in¬ 
sanity.  Now,  gentlemen,  in  my  investiga¬ 
tions  of  the  disease  of  the  mind,  in  my 
study  of  the  authorities  and  cases  on  the 
question,  I  have  been  unable  to  find  one 
so  perfectly  clear  in  my  mind  as  this. 
And,  gentlemen,  that  you  may  see  for 
yourselves  that  this  is  a  clear  case,  com¬ 
pared  with  other  cases  where  this  plea  has 
been  set  up  successfully,  I  desire  to  call 
your  attention  to  one  or  two  cases. 


In  the  case  of  Amelia  Norman,  indie 
for  stabbing  her  seducer,  the  jury  i 
dered  a  verdict  of  acquittal  after  an 
sence  of  only  two  minutes.  In  this  < 
the  evidence  showed  an  apparent  prem 
tation  and  purpose — namely,  the  delil 
ate  lying  in  wait  for  her  victim,  and 
the  evidences  of  thorough  design  and 
tent,  and  yet  the  jury  said  she  was  i 
sponsible. 

The  case  of  Sickles,  who  killed  the 
ducer  of  his  wife,  is  still  fresh  in  y 
minds.  In  this  case  no  medical  evide 
at  all  was  introduced  ;  and  yet  he  was 
quitted  on  the  ground  of  temporary 
sanity. 

Gen.  Cole,  who  killed  Hiscock,  prepa 
himself  with  a  pistol  in  Syracuse,  went 
Albany  on  purpose,  and  met  this  sedi 
— met  him  at  the  Delavan  House,  pu 
out  his  pistol  and  shot  him.  He 
promptly  acquitted. 

In  the  case  of  Pierce,  who  shot  the 
ducer  of  his  sister,  which  was  a  sim 
case,  the  jury  rendered  a  verdict  of 
quittal  on  the  ground  of  irresponsibilil 

Mary  Harris  killed  Burroughs,  who 
violated  his  promise  to  her  of  marriage, 
conduct  leading  to  the  act  looked  like 
of  one  preparing  to  commit  murder, 
was  acquitted  on  the  defence  of  tempo 
insanity  ;  and  subsequent  events  just 
the  propriety  of  the  plea,  for  to-day  si 
a  confirmed  maniac. 

And  these  are  a  few  in  hundreds  of  c 
where  this  defence  has  been  set  up  w  l 
the  facts  have  not  been  nearly  so  stroll 
in  this  case. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  charity  of  our  i 
ute  permits  the  defendant  to  be  a  witj 
in  her  own  behalf.  She  will  go  on  hi 
stand  and  tell  her  own  story.  It  will  II 
terrible  ordeal  to  her.  Why,  grave,  i 
wart,  robust  men — men  who  daily  bM 
with  the  world,  in  going  on  the  wit* 
stand  sometimes  glow  weak  and  falter.nl 
sometimes  even  faint  where  but  a  few  HI 
dred  dollars  are  at  stake.  But  here  ishi 
young,  timid  girl.  What  must  bell 
emotions,  what  must  be  her  feelings  v« 
she  takes  her  place  on  the  witness-sft# 
But  the  other  day  a  nobleman  in  EnjJ* 


37 


its  accosted  by  one  of  these  scientific 
intleman,  known  as  “  blackmailers,”  and 
i,s  informed  that  his  wife  was  a  woman 
:  bad  character  before  he  married  her, 
id  demanded  money  or  he  would 
■tke  an  expose.  The  nobleman  prompt- 
spurned  the  threat  and  the  au- 
|»r  of  it.  It  was  the  occasion  of  a  suit 
I:  malicious  libel.  On  that  trial  Lady 
Iriss,  who  was  the  lady  spoken  of,  was 
it  on  the  stand  as  a  witness  and  subject 
;  very  severe  cross-examination.  The 

iiits  and  circumstances  are  so  well  stated 

■: 

The  New  York  Times  of  a  recent  date 
iiit,  with  the  permission  of  the  Court,  I 
a  read  it  : 

‘During  the  trial  of  the  Turiss  libel 
i  t  witnesses  were  produced  to  prove  the 
ier  falsity  of  Choffer’s  charges,  while  it 
vs  also  proved  that  he  had  attempted  to 
)be  witnesses  in  his  defense.  No  one 
hbted  that  the  verdict  would  completely 
r  dicate  the  aspersed  character  of  Lady 
iriss,  when  the  case  was  suddenly  ter- 
nated  by  her  flight  from  London  and  the 
l.continuance  of  the  prosecution.  The 
)  y  intelligent  interpretation  of  her  dis- 
oearance  is  that  she  was  totally  unable 
i<  sustain  the  torture  of  a  cruel  examina- 
fa.  to  which  she  was  subjected.  It  can 
siily  be  understood  that  to  a  sensitive, 
idy  organized  nature,  nothing  could 
inn  worse  than  the  prospects  of  under - 
;'ng,  in  open  Court,  the  subtle  cruelty  of 
i  mg-continued  and  remorseless  6ross-ex- 
irination.  The  man  Choffers,  who  is  an 
ibmey,  conducted  his  own  defense,  and 
ling  the  first  examination  of  Lady 
iriss,  subjected  her  to  what  the  Spectator 
its  the  “torture  of  filthy  questions”  for 
Its.  She  passed  the  ordeal  bravely  ;  but 
1  certainty  of  its  renewal  may  easily 
ire  filled  her  with  such  horror  that  she 
iif erred  to  risk  the  misconstruction  -which 
wild  be  put  on  her  flight.  The  torture 
ilihe  examination  to  which  she  must  be 
tjected,  cannot  be  comprehended  except 
>;the  victim  herself,  which,  in  spite  of 
1  verdict  which  proclaimed  her  unsullied 
Iracter,  the  mud  of  the  trial  through 
r  ch  she  had  been  dragged  will  still  cling, 
d  ,  manner,  to  her  garments,  and  she  will 
Lie  gained  a  notoriety  horribly  painful 
o ,  modest  woman.  ” 

off,  gentleman,  here  is  a  woman  of 
lii  rank  and  noble  birth,  charged  with  a 
p|.tof  chastity.  That  she  should  be  over- 
c.e  and  reason  dethroned  rather  than 
a  objected  to  a  cross-examination,  what 


must  be  the  condition  of  this  defendant, 
charged  with  murder  ?  To  go  on  that 
stand  and  tell  her  story  will  be  an  ordeal 
almost  unendurable.  The  District  At¬ 
torney  has  in  store  for  her  the  rack  and 
torture  in  his  cross-examination.  We  may 
expect  to  see  her  writhe  and  groan,  per¬ 
haps  sink ;  but  I  trust  she  may  bear  bravely 
up.  I  hope  that  God,  the  friend  of  the 
friendless,  will  sustain  her  in  this  great 
trial ;  for  I  believe  that  God  is  on  her 
side.  Her  days  and  nights  in  prison  have 
not  been  all  dark  and  dreary  ;  there  has 
been  one  light  streaming  in  on  her,  it  has 
filled  her  soul  with  joy  and  gladness — her 
Bible  ;  it  has  been  her  constant  companion. 
Religion  has  been  her  daily  reliance  ;  and 
every  night  and  every  morning,  on  bended 
knees  and  with  clasped  hands  she  pours 
her  soul  in  prayer  to  God.  Ah,  gentlemen, 
when  the  soul  is  full,  when  thoughts  come 
struggling  up  for  utterance,  there  is  to  be 
found  relief  in  prayer. 

Without  money  and  without  price,  I 
have  devoted  a  few  days  with  affectionate 
energy  to  this  case.  I  do  not  permit  my¬ 
self  for  a  moment  to  think  that  your  ver¬ 
dict  will  be  any  other  than  an  entire 
acquittal.  If  you  have  any  doubt,  that 
doubt  goes  to  the  defendant.  Remember 
the  awful  responsibility  of  convicting  this 
defendant  if  she  was  insane.  Remember, 
too,  we  are  in  awful  times.  The  founda¬ 
tions  of  our  social  and  domestic  systems  are 
wavering.  Remember  that  the  poison  and 
mildew  of  licentiousness  are  corrupting  the 
heart  of  society.  The  fairest  of  our  land 
are  yearly  falling  into  the  snares  of  the 
Watsons  and  other  monsters  of  society. 
Remember  that  the  polished  libertine  and 
gross  sensualist,  with  bloodshot  eyes,  alike 
stand  leering  across  our  thresholds.  God 
has  reiterated  in  His  Holy  Book  that  the 
adulterous  shall  not  live.  Remember  the 
commandment.  Thou  shalt  not  commit 
adultery,  and  thou  shalt  not  kill,  stand  side 
by  side.  Through  this  man  this  young 
girl  lost  her  virtue — the  gem  -which  is  the 
honor  and  glory  of  every  woman.  Through 
him  she  lost  her  honor  and  self-respect, 
through  him  she  lost  her  peace  and  health, 
through  him  she  lost  her  reputation, 


38 


through  him  she  has  lost  everything  near 
and  dear,  and  for  him  you  say  that  she 
shall  meet  the  death  of  the  murderer  ? 

There  is  one  piece  of  evidence  I  desire 
particularly  to  call  your  attention  to,  it  is 
an  open  volume,  it  is  evidence  that 
you  can  see  and  read.  If  when  you  go 
into  this  jury  room  you  have  any  doubt 
about  this  case,  I  pray  you,  gentlemen, 
as  you  love  your  homes,  as  good  hus¬ 
bands,  fathers,  and  brothers,  to  turn 
your  eyes  and  your  minds  and  thoughts 
to  this  poor  girl  —  to  the  pale,  sweet, 
innocent  face,  and  to  the  frail,  feeble, 
attenuated  body  of  Fanny  Hyde,  and 
then  it  seems  to  me  the  verdict  will  in¬ 
voluntarily  tremble  from  your  lips — Not 
guilty.  If  you  pronounce  such  a  verdict, 
how  gladly  will  you  be  embraced  by  father, 
mother,  brother,  sister  ;  and  how  happy 
will  you  be  in  the  consciousness  that  you 
have  brought  gladness  to  them — what  none 
but  they  can  appreciate.  But  how  dark, 
dismal  and  gloomy  will  be  your  thoughts, 
how  delirious  will  be  your  sleep,  if  you 
pronounce  your  verdict  that  shall  bow 
down  this  family  more  than  they  are  bowed 
down,  and  shall  send  them  out  of  this 
Court  a  broken,  wrecked  and  ruined  fam¬ 
ily  ;  one  to  go  back  to  her  prison  den, 
the  others  to  go  to  a  darkened  threshold, 
to  a  home  ruined — a  family  of  agony,  of 
wailing  and  of  tears. 

- - — 

TESTIMONY  FOR  THE  DEFEND¬ 
ANT. 

Howard  Daisely — Sworn. 

By  Mr.  MORRIS. — Where  do  you  reside?  A. 
236  Bridge  Street. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ?  A.  Stone  dealer. 

Q.  Where  is  your  place  of  business  ?  A.  61 
Fulton  Street. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  accused  in  this  case, 
Fanny  Hyde  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  her?  A.  Four 
years,  or  thereabouts/'  or  a  little  over. 

Q.  Where  did  you  first  become  acquainted 
with  her  ?  A.  She  came  to  the  Sunday  School 
with  which  I  was  connected,  as  a  scholar  in  that 
school. 

Q.  What  school  was  it  ?  A.  The  Bridge  street 
Primitive  Methodist  Sunday  School. 

Q.  About  what  time  was  it  that  she  first  came 
there  ?  A.  I  know  she  was  there  in  January, 


1868,  possibly  a  week  or  two  prior  to  that  ti  1 

Q.  How  long  did  she  attend  your  Sui  j 
School?  A.  For  about  two  years. 

Q.  What  was  her  attendance,  regular  or  ot 
wise  ?  A.  Generally  regular. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  she  lived  at  that  t 
during  that  period  ?  A.  The  first  part  of  « 
time  I  do  not,  but  the  latter  part  of  the  time  < 
lived  in  Williamsburgh. 

Q.  Up  to  what  time  did  she  attend  sch  1 
When  did  she  leave  ?  A.  She  left  the  scho  ] 
think,  it  was  somewhere  in  May,  1870. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  that  was  befor  >i 
after  her  marriage  ?  A.  It  was  just  prior  to  i 
marriage  ;  her  name  was  not  taken  off  the  b  i 
until  after  her  marriage. 

Q.  What  was  her  conduct  during  the  pe  <J 
you  saw  her  ?  A.  Morally  good. 

Q.  Did  she  take  any  part  in  the  exhibitic  >j 
the  school  ?  A.  Yes  ;  she  was  chosen  to  a 
part  in  the  exhibitions  as  a  speaker. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Watson  ?  A.  I  c  ’) 
know  him  by  the  name  of  Mr.  Watson. 

Q.  State  whether  you  can  recognize  a| 
photograph ?  A.  Yes  ;  I  recognize  the  c< « 
figure  as  a  gentleman  whom  I  have  seen. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  ?  A.  I  have  H 
him  at  the  last  exhibition  we  had  at  the  Su: 
School. 

Q.  Was  that  exhibition  in  the  evening  oi  ij 
time  ?  A.  In  the  evening. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  was  acquai  “d 
with  Mrs.  Hyde  at  that  time  or  not?  A  lo 
farther  than  a  circumstance  that  occurrt«| 
that  exhibition  ;  that  is  all  I  know  of  their  l  lg 
acquainted. 

Q.  What  was  that  circumstance  ? 

Objected  to  as  immaterial  and  irreleva;  to 
this  trial — a  transaction  that  occurred  somf  ae 
between  1868  and  1870  at  a  Sunday  School 

Mr.  MORRIS.  — The  object  of  the  que  m 
is  to  show  the  relation  of  the  parties. 

The  COURT. — Do  .you  claim  it  to  be  le¬ 
vant? 

Mr.  MORRIS.— Yes. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — Now,  if  the  Court  pie: 
If  I  understood  the  opening  of  the  defense^  ha 
nature  of  the  defence  reduced  to  a  formula,  to 
several  formulas  was— first,  that  there  was  «• 
lision  between  these  two  parties  on  the  occ.lcm 
of  this  killing,  and  some  circumstances  ol  io- 
lence  on  the  part  of  deceased  toward  the  ps- 
oner,  which  justified  her  in  taking  his  li  -I 
understand  that  to  have  been  one  of  the  p  m>- 
sitioms  in  the  opening  of  the  case.  Of  cosu 
so  far  as  that  proposition  was  concerned  his 
question  would  be  wholly  irrelevant  and  in  m- 
petent  here.  I  understand  the  other  pro  si- 
tion  to  be,  reduced  to  fewer  words  :  that  Iris 
prisoner  at  the  time  of  killing,  was  insane  <H 
afflicted  with  what  is  known  ns  mania  t-w 
loria,  which  is  one  branch  of  insanity,  ill 
understand  the  proposition  made  by  the  '  ni¬ 
sei  in  opening,  substantiating  that  theory 
that  these  parties  had  been  in  the  habit  foM 
or  three  years  of  living  together  adulter  sly 
before  this  prisoner  was  married,  and  afteptoj 
was  married.  I  understand  him  to  eosdi 
that  during  that  period  they  were  practwjl 
occupying  the  same  premises,  and  one  v  w 


39 


employ  of  the  other  More  or  less  of  that 
: .  I  understand  him  to  claim  that  because 
hat  adulterous  connection,  with  the  sur- 
i  cling  circumstances,  this  insane  condition 
)  superinduced.  Now,  as  I  understand  it, 
:re  facts  can  be  introduced  in  evidence,  tend- 
{»  show  insanity,  they  must  be  such  facts  as 
,  rally  tend  to  produce  insanity.  The  cause 
.  effect  claimed  must  have  some  natural 
lion  to  each  other,  and  I  don’t  think  the 
its  are  yet  prepared  to  hold — if  they  are, 
e  are  going  a  step  farther  than  any  other 
‘nee  coming  under  my  observation — that 
use  two  persons  have  lived  adulterously 
sher  for  two  or  three  years  that  tends  to 
(ace  insanity.  I  don’t  think  the  courts 
1  rold  that  a  woman  who  is  living  adulter- 
y  with  a  married  man,  who  herself  is  mar¬ 
ie  nost  of  the  time,  and  voluntarily  continues 
xtaposition  with  him,  is  necessarily  sub- 
ji  to  insanity.  Now,  the  proposition  for 
li  I  am  contending  is  this  :  that  before  the 
usel  can  introduce  testimony  to  show  that 
e/as  insane,  the  facts  which  he  proposes  to 
if  out  must  bear  some  relation  to  insanity, 
chat  is  a  question  for  the  Court  whether 
c  things  will  produce  this  result,  which  is  a 
3f;e.  Now  let  us  see  how  far  that  rule  has 
e  carried,  on  what  principle  it  is  that  testi- 
li  has  been  admitted  before  this  in  various 
st  where  the  plea  of  insanity  has  been  set  up 
n  hues  successfully,  and  sometimes  unsuc- 
dllly.  I  will  go  back  no  farther  than  the 
st  if  Sickles,  starting  with  that  which  is  the 
3]ing-out  case  which  has  attracted  more 
te ion  than  any  other  since  this  idea  of  in- 
ar  seems  to  be  so  prevalent.  This  case  of 
si  ;s  was  one  where  a  man  killed  another  be- 
us.of  the  adulterous  connection  from  time  to 
aof  the  deceased  with  the  wife  of  the  man 
arilling.  That  fact  coming  to  his  knowl- 
gche  armed  himself,  and  coming  in  view  of 
i  rson  who  had  thus  debauched  his  wife, 
s  it  and  killed  him.  Now  it  is  easy  to  see 
it  le  facts  thus  developed  to  the  mind  of  the 
sl;ad  of  criminal  intercourse  with  his  wife, 
vc.  very  different  effect  upon  the  mind  than 
3 '  se  presented  here.  The  Court  there  held 
it  might  lead  to  insanity  on  the  part  of  a 
slid  to  hear  that  a  man  had  debauched  his 
fe|  Another  case,  a  short  time  ago,  is  that  of 
er,  who  killed  a  man  in  Lockport  ;  that 
s  case  where  the  same  defense  was  set  up 
is  ought  to  be  interposed  here.  This  man’s 
teliad  been  seduced  under  promise  of  mar¬ 
ge  and  she  was  likely  to  be  delivered  of  a 
ilc  The  families  of  both  sides  were  in  high 
nag.  The  brother  sought  an  interview 
th  Ins  seducer,  and  asked  him  to  make  the 
jaiion  which  honor  demanded,  asking  him 
may  his  sister,  who  was  equally  respectable 
ttner  destroyer.  He  put  the  brother  off 
im  me  to  time  by  saying  ‘ 1  After  the  child  is 
vm;  will  be  time  enough  ;  my  friends  will 
ike  fuss  about  it.  ”  He  sought  to  postpone 
3  n  triage,  at  the  same  time  not  entirely  re¬ 
in  Finally,  the  brother  pressed  him  and 
d  jj  him,  “Now  I  cannot  go  back  to  my 
sir  s  in  this  frame  of  mind  ”— he  had  been 
lay.jefore  in  a  frenzied  state  of  mind—  “  I  ask 


you  now  to  say  one  way  or  the  other,  whether 
you  will  or  not-!  ”  The  brutal  answer  was, 
“I’ll  see  you  in  hell  first.”  Then  the  brother 
shot  him.  Neither  that  brother  nor  that  hus¬ 
band  participated  in  the  offence  that  led  to 
this  ;  and  the  Court  then  say  that  these  oc¬ 
currences  were  a  fact  which  might  in  the  nature 
of  things  tend  to  produce  insanity.  I  do  not 
cite  other  cases  of  the  same  nature,  but  they  are 
numerous  in  the  books.  Brothers  have  slain 
the  seducers  of  their  sisters  ;  husbands  have 
slain  the  seducers  of  their  wives.  The  cases 
where  insanity  has  been  set  up  are  those  who 
have  been  near  and  dear  relatives,  and  no  par¬ 
ticipants  in  the  immorality ;  and  the  courts 
have  held  that  under  the  testimony'  of  the  wit¬ 
nesses,  in  the  nature  of  things,  a  person  might 
be  rendered  insane  by  a  dishonor  of  this  kind. 

Now,  how  does  this  case  differ?  Three  years 
ago  these  parties  commenced  adulterous  inter¬ 
course.  That  adulterous  intercourse  was  mutual 
and  continued  down  to  the  time  she  was  mar¬ 
ried,  and  continued  after  she  was  married  when, 
for  all  counsel  on  the  other  side  have  stated, 
there  could  not  possibly  have  been  any  coercion. 
But  whether  there  was  physical  coercion  or  not, 
which,  if  exerted  at  the  time  of  the  killing 
would  have  justified  the  killing,  that  would  have 
no  bearing  on  the  question  of  insanity.  Will 
the  Courts  hold  that  two  parties  living  together 
adulterously  by  mutual  consent  will  produce 
insanity  in  connection  with  such  facts  as  are 
given  here  in  this  case,  of  a  trifling  nature,  and 
which  happened  before  the  act,  and  there  being 
no  pretence  of  insanity  immediately  after  the 
act?  The  claim  of  the  defense  is  that  this 
woman  having  lived  adulterously  with  this  man 
down  to  a  certain  period  suddenly  becomes  in¬ 
sane,  and  remains  insane  long  enough  to  com¬ 
mit  this  act,  and  becomes  sane  immediately 
afterwards,  and  has  been  sane  ever  since.  Now 
I  submit  to  the  Court  that,  conceding  every 
statement  made  by  counsel  to  be  true,  it  don’t 
show  a  state  of  facts  which  the  Court  can  say 
might  produce  such  a  kind  of  insanity  as  is 
claimed  here.  I  submit  to  the  Court  that  when 
the  books  say  facts  and  circumstances  may  be 
shown,  that  the  gentlemen  cannot  put  in  facts 
and  circumstances  that  cannot  possibly  tend  to 
produce  insanity.  Now,  what  is  this  testimony 
sought  to  be  proven  ?  Why,  that  this  man,  at  a 
Sunday  School  exhibition,  threw  a  bouquet  on 
the  stage  to  this  woman,  and  that  this  was  an 
act  tending  t  o  produce  insanity,  which  tended 
to  show  the  relation  of  the  parties  which  re¬ 
sulted  in  insanity.  Now,  if  this  be  admitted,  I 
do  not  know  where  will  be  the  limit  to  this  kind 
of  testimony. 

Mr.  MORRIS.  —I  regret  the  counsel  has  so  mis¬ 
apprehended  the  tenor  of  our  defense  and  the  ten¬ 
or  of  my  associate’s  opening  ;  and  I  think  if  he 
will  extend  his  researches  a  little  further  in  cases 
of  this  kind,  he  will  find  no  difficulty  whatever 
in  apprehending  the  pertinence  of  the  testimony 
of  this  character.  Now,  the  counsel  has  as¬ 
sumed  a  good  deal  in  his  argument  that  is  not 
pretended  by  us.  He  assumes  that  this  inter¬ 
course  was  voluntary  on  the  part  of  the  prison¬ 
er.  We  repudiate  that  idea  from  the  very  start. 
The  District  Attorney  says  that  there  was  no 


40 


physical  coercion  at  least.  .Well,  it  seemed  to 
me  that  if  there  was  a  mental  coercion  it  is 
much  more  pertinent  to  our  inquiry  than  phys¬ 
ical  coercion.  It  is  in  that  region  that  we  have 
to  look  in  this  case.  In  reference  to  the  case  of 
Pierce,  tried  in  Lockport  last  fall,  the  counsel 
conceded  that  ‘  ‘  the  testimony  in  that  case  of 
the  relations  of  the  parties  was  entirely  admis¬ 
sible  because  the  avenger  was  a  brother.  ”  Ergo, 
if  the  sister  upon  whom  the  ruin  had  been 
wrought,  if  the  sister  who  had  been  destroyed 
had  become  her  own  avenger,  the  testimony 
would  not  have  been  pertinent !  That  is,  as  I 
understand,  the  argument  of  counsel.  He  says 
that  in  all  these  cases  it  has  been  where  the  hus¬ 
band  is  the  avenger  or  the  brother  is  the  aven¬ 
ger,  not  the  actors,  not  the  parties  to  the  crim¬ 
inal  intercourse.  Therefore,  although  a  man  of 
mature  years,  carrying  on  the  manufacturing 
business,  takes  into  his  employment  young 
girls— children — and  by  his  superior  position, 
the  superior  power  of  his  mind,  and  the  author¬ 
ity  he  excercises  over  them,  before  their  judg¬ 
ments  are  formed,  he  brings  about  their  ruin, 
and  then,  against  their  will,  seeks  to  continue 
that  intercourse,  and  they,  by  the  help  of  the 
Almighty,  raise  their  feeble  arms  and  strike  down 
the  destroyer,  then  all  evidence  is  not  admissi¬ 
ble  nor  material.  But  let  us  see.  There  is 
nothing  new  about  this  question.  The  District 
Attorney  cites  the  case  of  Sickles.  That  was  a 
different  case  entirely.  There  the  medical  testi¬ 
mony  was  doubtful  on  the  question  of  insanity, 
and  the  jury  in  that  case  exercised  their  own 
judgment,  and  said  at  the  time  he  committed 
the  act  he  was  irresponsible  ;  and  the  verdict  of 
that  jury  has  been  sustained  by  the  entire  na¬ 
tion,  for  he  represents  the  nation  abroad. 

But  there  are  occasions,  if  the  Court  please, 
where  the  parties  themselves  have  been  the 
avengers.  Take  the  case  of  Miss  Harris.  She 
provided  herself  with  a  pistol  in  the  city  of 
.Chicago.  She  comes  on  to  Baltimore  and  con¬ 
sults  a  lawyer,  with  a  view  to  bringing  an 
action  against  Mr.  Burroughs,  who  had  promised 
her  marriage.  She  leaves  Baltimore,  goes 
straight  to  Washington  and  the  Treasury'  De¬ 
partment,  and  there  inquired  for  Burroughs. 
She  was  told  that  there  were  two  Mr.  Burroughs 
in  the  Department.  She  calls  for  the  book  con¬ 
taining  the  names  of  the  employees,  and  examined 
it  until  she  came  to  the  name  of  Adonirab  Bur¬ 
roughs.  She  says,  “That's  the  person.”  She 
leaves,  shuts  the  door,  goes  out  into  the  hallway, 
and  takes  a  position  behind  a  large  clock.  She  re¬ 
mains  there  nearly  an  hour  until  he  comes  out, 
and  then  she  takes  deliberate  aim  and  shoots 
him  down,  with  a  mortal  wound.  He  attempts 
to  fly,  when  she  pursues  him  and  fires  two  or 
three  more  shots  at  him.  There  was  no  seduc¬ 
tion  in  that  case.  That  outrage  had  not  been 
added,  but  she  believed  he  had  wronged  her, 
and  that  so  -wrought  upon  her  mind  that  she 
sought  him  out  and  shot  him,  and  to-day  she  is 
a  hopeless  maniac  in  a  mad-house. 

Well,  let  us  come  to  another  case  more  recent 
than  that,  where  this  precise  question  was  dis¬ 
tinctly  raised  and  passed  on  by  the  Court, 
although  the  circumstances  were  not  one-twen¬ 
tieth  as  strong  as  in  this  case.  I  refer  to  the 


case  of  Laura  D.  Fair,  where  this  questi  f 
distinctly  raised  and  passed  on  by  the  j 
Employees  in  saloons  were  called  up< 
stand  as  witnesses,  and  parties  who  had  3 
seen  them  pass  along  the  street  in  compai  1 
each  other,  and  all  that  testimony  was  1  a 
to  be  proven,  and  under  a  specific  ob  ij 
Witnesses  in  that  case  were  asked  sue)  n 
tions  as  these  : 

“  Q.  Do  you  know  Mrs.  Fair,  the  defe 
A.  Yes,  I  do.  Q.  Did  you  know  Mr.  (; 
den  in  his  life  time?  A.  Yes,  I  did.  Q 
ask  you  if  they  or  either  of  them  too  j 
meals  at  your  place  at  any  time  ?  A.  M 
tenden  used  to  dine  there  most  every  day  • 
times  he  came  with  Mrs.  Fair.  ” 

A  number  of  witnesses  were  called  1 
case  to  prove  that  they  had  simply  see : 
parties  together,  seen  them  in  saloons  t( 
and  seen  them  walking  along  the  street  t<  1 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  relatioi 
parties,  because  the  allegation  in  that  c  t 
that  they  had  been  living  together  in  h 
intercourse,  and  it  was  to  establish  t 
that  their  evidence  was  offered  and  a( . 
What  are  the  causes  of  insanity  ?  What  t 
causes  that  operate  on  the  mind  and  1 
this  ?  Who  can  tell  them  ?  Who  can  11 
that  question?  What  is  it?  Can  ai 
Persons  who  have  made  the  human  it 
study  all  their  lives  know  that  there  art  a 
things  that  do  operate  on  the  mind,  and  t . 
a  tendency  to  affect  the  mind,  and  there  i  < 
author  that  does  not  lay  down  the  pro  j 
that  anything  that  tends  to  produce  w<  m 
to  the  mind,  trouble,  intense  reflection 
tendency  to  injure  the  mind.  I  ask  if  si 
in  this  case,  and  that  is  the  first  step  pt 
the  proposition — that  this  man  sedui-l 
child  by  the  power  he  exercised  over  ;,t 
continued  that  intercourse  against  her  a 
tions,  against  her  will,  against  her  effoi ,  t 
she  was  driven  to  desperation,  if  this  i:  oil 
first  step  to  prove  that?  “That  that  ad 
effect  on  the  mind  !”  Who  will  say  tka- 
affects  the  mind  ?  According  to  the  ifl 
counsel,  there  could  never  be  such  a  d  |J 
insanity  set  up  with  any7  success  uns^ 
could  prove  the  person  was  a  raving* 
and  had  been  all  her  life.  Counsel  |a;Sl 
not  shown  nor  alleged  any  insanity  su 
to  the  act.  Did  counsel  ever  hear  ol  * 
recovery  from  this  disease  ?  Does  he  ;pi| 
ratio  of  men  and  women  who  are  se  to 
asylum  and  are  restored  to  reason  a  il 
ment?  We  say7  in  this  case  that  the  p<h 
we  offer  is  tending  in  that  direction — t.3i| 
prove  that  a  disease  of  the  mind  has  1  b 
duced.  The  weight  of  the  testimony  iJi 
question.  W e  will  argue  that  when  e 
mony  is  all  in — as  to  the  effect  of  the  t» 
We  have  a  right  to  prove  the  relations  f  I 
parties,  and  that  the  conduct  of  H 
toward  this  girl  was  such  as  would  tn 
produce  just  such  results  as  were  proditd 
have  indicated  other  predisposing  caud  < 
have  been  recognized  by  all  the  writeiw 
last  fifty  years  in  this  country  and  in  p| 
and  which  the  counsel  says  are  nothg 
trivial.  I  shall  have  those  researches!  ( 


ie  this  trial  is  concluded.  Every  one  of 
:  causes  indicated  are  held  by  authorities 
Writers  on  the  subject  to  be  sufficient  to 
i  ice  this  state  of  mind.  I  say  to  the  Court 
ly  has  gone  by  when  counsel  can  get  up  in 
i  and  whistle  down  the  wind  a  defense  of  this 
.<  The  time  has  come  when  juries  and 
u  are  allowed  to  recognize  it ;  and  I  have 

*  that  in  this  country,  courts  and  juries  do 
oiize  this  defense  of  insanity  ;  and  the  au- 
aies  all  state  that  the  very  thing  we  seek  to 

now  is  one  of  the  fruitful  sources  of 
o  er.  We  speak  of  a  dismenorrhoea 
1  lunsel  gets  up  and  hoots  the  idea.  “It  is 
ii*  in  its  nature  and  yet  writers  on  this 
>jt  designate  this  as  one  of  the  fruitful 
its  of  temporary  insanity.  There  is  not  a 
n  d  man  but  that  knows  the  effect  of  this 
es  i  upon  the  mind  and  the  intellect  of  the 
ia  sex.  Why,  there  are  girls  here  in  this 
V  -day  laboring  under  this  disease  who  are 
zyt  home  and  would  be  perfectly  irrespon- 
lepr  any  act  they  might  commit,  while  that 
i  on  them  ;  and  when  we  speak  of  dismen- 
kc,  it  is  hooted  down  by  counsel  ;  when  we 
alif  hereditary  predisposition,  it  is  “triv- 
“  don’t  amount  to  anything  when  we 
amtion  to  the  feelings  of  the  accused  on 
'  orning,  her  wild,  vacant  stare,  her  wish 
Oth,  the  counsel  says:  “It  is  trivial ;  it 
■u  s  to  nothing.  ”  I  say  to  the  Court  that 
tie  has  gone  by,  thank  God,  when  respon- 
0  ings,  afflicted  by  the  Almighty,  are  to  be 
■,'gl  to  an  ignominious  death.  The  very 
t  :p  is  to  prove  the  relation  of  these  par- 
■  ie  cannot  move  or  stir  a  step  without 

•  ■  produce  the  case  in  Court,  where  this 
'  is  question  is  ruled  upon,  in  cases  where 
reons  for  it  were  not  one-twentieth  part 
rcg  as  in  this  case  ;  and  I  undertake  to 
th|  there  is  no  case  of  the  kind  where  it 
bei  excluded  by  the  Court. 

RITTON. — Now,  if  the  Court  please, 
o!  -  pretend  to  have  read  the  authorities 
thiast  fifty  years  on  this  subject,  nor  do  we 
pt  he  position  in  Court  of  hooting  down 
iense.  The  point  which  I  wish  to  make 
hi  Court  is  this  :  There  are  some  things 
hiiturally  tend  to  produce  insanity,  under 
ainorities,  both  medical  and  legal ;  and 
e  a  some  things  which  do  not  tend  to  pro- 
iianity,  under  the  authorities,  medical 
*%■  I  simply  ask  this  Court  to  discrimi- 
bfveen  these  things — between  those  which 
toroduce  insanity  and  those  that  do  not, 
thaare  sought  to  be  introduced  into  the 
toreach  the  prejudice  of  somebody  on 
£)und.  The  Court  can  discriminate 
"■vlpe.  It  is  not  everything  that  tends  to 
'ic  insanity.  The  question  is  simply  a 
Imposition,  and  I  don't  intend  to  talk 
■  1  It  is  n°t  every  act  that  produces 
J1tf  it  is  only  certain  things  that  tend  to 
uciRe  result. 

MORRIS. — Indicate  what  are  those  cer- 
thj  *s. 

r-  LITTON. — It  may  be  that  this  counsel, 
‘g  id  all  the  authorities  for  the  last  fifty 
’;.  ci  recapitulate  them  ;  I  cannot.  It  is 
[w'kerfaow  for  me  to  say  that  there  are  some 

L 


things  which  do  not  tend  to  produce  this  effect 
of  insanity,  and  that  is  the  point  of  the  argu¬ 
ment.  It  is  not  necessary  to  define  the  things 
that  do.  Now  I  claim  that  there  is  nothing  in 
the  circumstances  of  this  case,  according  to  the 
opening,  nor  is  there  anything  in  the  fact  of 
two  married  persons  living  together  adulterous- 
ly,  from  which  the  court  can  say  this  species  of 
insanity  should  follow.  The  cases  that  have 
been  cited  are  different  from  this.  The  case  of 
Laura  D.  Fair  is  a  very  inapt  illustration  of  the 
counsel’s  position.  In  that  case  it  was  claimed 
by  counsel  in  the  opening,  and  they  offered  to 
prove,  that  not  only  had  she  committed  the  act 
of  following  up  and  killing  this  man  under  a 
repudiated  promise  of  marriage ;  but  they 
offered  to  prove  that  after  that  she  showed  clear 
indications  of  insanity,  of  being  a  raving  ma¬ 
niac,  and  the  only  question  was  whether  this 
was  a  feigned  insanity  or  a  real  one.  The  jury 
found  practically  that  it  was  a  feigned  one  by 
finding  her  guilty  of  the  offence  charged  in  the 
indictment.  Substantially  the  same  arguments 
were  made  in  that  case  as  made  here.  When 
the  defense  offered  to  show  the  letters  of  the 
deceased,  tending  to  show  the  relations  between 
them,  and  under  which  he  lived  with  her  in  this 
improper  intimacy,  after  a  long  argument  by  the 
prosecution  that  there  was  nothing  in  these 
relations  between  these  parties,  nor  anything  in 
these  letters  tending  to  cause  insanity,  so  far 
from  the  Court  holding  any  such  doctrine  as 
claimed  here,  the  Court  there  held  this  : 

‘  ‘  I  am  not  aware  of  any  case  where  the  au¬ 
thorities  have  gone  so  far  as  to  allow  corre¬ 
spondence  of  that  character,  except  where  a 
husband  has  been  indicted  for  homicide  in  kill¬ 
ing  the  seducer  of  his  wife  or  the  supposed 
seducer  ;  or  of  the  father  in  the  same  relation, 
with  reference  to  a  daughter,  or  a  brother  or 
some  near  relative.  So  far  as  this  Court  is  con¬ 
cerned, ‘it  will  not  be  the  first  judge  to  say  that 
correspondence  between  a  mistress  and  married 
man  can  be  put  in  evidence  to  show  that  she 
was  insane.  ”  That  is  the  ruling  of  the  Court 
on  testimony  offered  on  the  precise  ground  on 
which  this  testimony  is  offered  here.  The  let¬ 
ters  afterwards  came  in  ;  but  on  other  grounds 
and  by  consent.  By  the  arguments  of  counsel 
one  would  think  we  are  under  the  old  Italian 
Vendetta,  recognized  in  feudal  times,  when  all 
that  it  was  necessary  to  do  when  a  woman  was 
outraged  was  to  kiil  the  next  relative,  who  in 
turn  must  be  killed,  and  so  on.  He  talks  about 
vengeance  in  one  case  and  vengeance  in  an¬ 
other,  and  claims  the  same  right  for  this  wo¬ 
man  to  take  vengeance  on  this  man  as  a  brother 
or  husband  would.  If  this  is  the  ground  of 
the  argument,  if  it  is  a  question  of  vengeance, 
who  has  a  right  to  fake  vengeance  ?  Vengeance 
on  the  part  of  individuals  is  not  known  to  the 
law.  Only  the  Almighty  takes  vengeance,  and 
Courts  administer  the  laws  and  do  not  uphold 
people  in  taking  vengeance.  The  only  instance 
the  counsel  could  possibly  cite  is  the  case  of 
Cole.  In  that  case,  notwithstanding  the  ver¬ 
dict  was  one  of  acquittal,  it  is  one  of  those  cases 
that  is  a  disgrace  to  the  jurisprudence  of  the 
country.  While  I  concede  that  one’s  sympa¬ 
thies  are  with  persons  wronged  in  this  way— 


42 


with  a  husband  avenging  himself  for  the  se¬ 
duction  of  his  wife,  yet  at  the  same  time  look 
at  the  proceedings  in  that  case.  They  claimed 
in  that  case  mania  Iransitoria.  Look  at  the 
theory  of  it.  They  claim  that  it  comes  on  in 
a  moment  and  passes  away  in  a  moment  ;  they 
claim  that  this  insanity  comes  on  suddenly  and 
passes  away  as  suddenly  after  the  act  is  done 
which  has  been  perpetrated  under  its  influence. 
In  this  case  of  Cole  the  jury  come  in  and  say  : 
“We  find  the  man  was  sane  immediately  before 
the  act  ;  we  find  he  was  sane  immediately  after 
the  act ;  but  we  have  doubts  whether  he  was 
sane  at  the  time  the  act  was  committed.”  The 
Court  ruled  if  they  had  any  doubt  on  that 
question  of  insanity,  the  benefit  of  that  doubt 
should  go  to  the  prisoner,  and  they  went  out 
and  returned  a  verdict  of  acquittal.  As  human 
nature  is  constituted,  it  may  seem  that  that 
direction  was  right,  but  in  the  eye  of  the  law 
it  was  not  right ;  and  if  the  law  is  to  be  sus¬ 
tained  in  the  Courts,  then  these  mitigating 
circumstances  should  go  where  they  belong  ; 
and  where  these  mitigating  circumstances  ex¬ 
ist,  let  the  clemency  of  the  executive  interpose. 
Under  this  plea  of  insanity,  or  pretended  in¬ 
sanity,  I  don’t  believe  that  it  should  be  permit¬ 
ted  that  all  the  testimony  which  bears  on  the 
previous  relations  of  the  parties,  should  be  ad¬ 
mitted  to  show  some  scandalous  intrigues  that 
are  totally  outside  of  any  influence  whatever  on 
the  question  of  insanity. 

Mr.  MORRIS.— I  have  found  an  authority 
where  this  precise  question  has  been  ruled  on. 
A  witness  is  called  in  this  case  for  the  purpose 
of  proving  that  Mr.  Crittenden  engaged  a  room. 
The  question  is  asked  : 

“Q.  What  did  he  say  he  wanted  it  for? 
A.  He  wanted  it  next  to  Mrs.  Fair’s,  so  he 
would  not  sleep  in  the  house  with  his  wife  ; 
that  she  would  know  it 

“Mr.  CAMPBELL.— I  object  to  this  evi¬ 
dence,  if  your  Honor  please. 

“The  COURT. — I  overrule  the  objection. 

“Q.  On  Monday.  You  say  that  was  the 
third  day  before  the  shooting  ?  A.  Yes. 

“Q.  Had  you  seen  either  there  prior  to  that 
time?  A.  Yes. 

“Q.  How  frequently?  A.  I  cannot  say. 
Several  times. 

“  Q.  What  part  of  the  house?  A.  In  Mrs. 
Fair’s  room,  sir,  and  in  the  hall.” 

There  is  the  question  on  this  testimony  raised 
and  passed.  I  am  not  called  upon  in  this  trial 
to  vindicate  Judge  Hogeboom  from  the  charge 
of  being  a  fool.  I  don’t  think  he  needs  such  a 
vindication  at  my  hands. 

Mr.  BRITTON.  —May  I  ask  the  favor  here  that 
the  Court  will  designate  the  manner  in  which 
counsel  shall  be  heard  in  these  arguments.  I 
don’t  like  to  be  subjected  to  these  remarks  of 
the  counsel  after  the  close  of  what  I  deem  to  be 
a  concluded  argument.  I  would  like  to  know 
where  we  stand  ;  and  I  suppose  it  would  be 
orderly  to  admit  only  the  moving  argument, 
the  answer,  and  then  the  reply. 

The  COURT.— The  Court  will  apply  a  very 
strict  rule  at  some  time  during  the  progress  of 
the  case. 


Mr.  BRITTON. — There  may  be  an  aD 
and  then  a  reply. 

The  COURT.  —That  will  be  the  rule, 
counsel  may  state  an  objection,  and  stafi 
grounds,  which  may  be  answered  by  opp, 
counsel,  which  may  be  briefly  replied  to. 

Mr.  MORRIS.— Suppose  counsel  in  rep] 
troduce  new  matter,  it  would  be  perfectly 
lar  to  answer  that  new  matter. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — Well,  the  counsel  ha 
troduced  new  matter  as  to  Judge  Hogeboo 

Mr.  MORRIS. — He  asserted  the  affim' 
of  that. 

The  COURT. — The  Court  adheres  t( 
ruling  on  the  question.  It  may  come  ii 
particularly  as  bearing  on  the  question  c 
sanity,  but  as  relating  to  a  fact  or  circums 
of  the  relations  of  these  two  parties,  whic 
defendant  has  a  right  to  have  in. 

Q.  Now  state  the  circumstance  to  whic 
were  about  to  allude  when  the  objection  w 
terposed  ?  A.  The  circumstances  were  t 
Mrs.  Hyde,  who  was  Fanny  Windlev  the 
livered  an  address  at  that  exhibition.  Aft 
delivery  of  the  address,  some  person  in  th< 
of  the  church  threw  on  to  the  platform  t 
quet.  It  was  something  extraordinary ; 
connected  with  that  school  ten  years,  I 
saw  anything  of  the  kind ;  it  called  forth  re 

Objected  to. 

Q.  Whom  did  that  come  from  ?  A.  It 
from  the  gentleman  whose  portrait  I  saw 
sented  here  in  the  picture. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  seeing  him  there 
than  once?  A.  I  don’t  recollect  seeini 
there,  only  at  that  time  ;  I  may  have  seei 
but  don’t  remember. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  Fanny's  comp 
were,  while  she  was  attending  school  the 
female  companions  ? 

Objected  to. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — That  is  on  the  quest  I 
her  own  character. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — It  is  of  no  important 
into  the  question  of  her  character,  two, 
or  four  years  back,  before  this  happened.  ' 

Mr.  MORRIS. — That,  certainly,  is  n 
remarkable  opinion  ;  I  suppose  we  can  j  i 
the  question  of  her  character  from  the  ti 
left  her  cradle. 

The  COURT. — Admitted  ;  we  will  ita 
the  witness  to  state  who  her  associatetfW 
confining  the  answer  to  that  term. 

A.  The  girls  of  the  class  to  which  >j| 
longed  ;  I  could  name  them  all  ;  there  w  H 
or  six  very  intimately  acquainted  with  hi  id 

Q.  Were  you  the  teacher  of  her  class  oial 
intendent  ?  A.  I  was  the  superintenden  ti 
time. 

Q.  Who  was  the  teacher  of  her  che1  I 
Mrs.  Hanshaw. 

Cross-na  mination. 

Q.  When  was  it  that  this  eircnnwtaj* 
curred?  A.  April,  1870,  two  years  ago.jB 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  this  man  at  in'll 
time  ?  A.  I  don’t  recollect. 

Q.  Is  that  the  only  time  you  saw  hi  •'  1 
That  I  recollect. 


43 


You  have  never  seen  him  since?  A.  Never. 
From  looking  at  that  likeness,  you  identi- 
as  being  the  likeness  of  the  same  man? 
recognize  that  to  be  the  man. 

Never  saw  him  before  ?  A.  I  don’t  know 
ever  saw  him  before  or  since. 

It  did  not  occur  to  you  at  that  time,  that 
ing  that  bouquet  was  an  act  to  produce 
ity?  A.  No. 

What  did  she  do  with  that  bouquet  ?  A. 
t  know. 

Did  she  pick  it  up  ?  A.  Picked  it  up. 

Did  she  take  it  away  ?  A.  I  cannot  say. 
Did  not  see  what  she  did  with  it  ?  A.  No, 

.You  did  not  see  her  do  anything  herself 
>oked  like  insanity.  A.  No,  sir. 


Mrs.  Jane  Thatcher— Sworn. 

.Where  do  you  live  ?  A.  275  Fleet  street. 

.  )o  you  know  Fanny  Hyde  ?  A.  Yes. 

.  low  long  have  you  known  her  ?  A.  I  am 
lice  ;  it  is  between  three  and  four  years. 

•  Where  did  you  become  acquainted  with 
?  A.  In  the  Sunday  School. 

.  ’he  Sunday  School  of  Primitive  Metho- 
s  A.  Yes. 

.  Vas  she  in  your  class  ?  A.  No,  sir  ;  she 
s was  in  my  class  ;  it  was  a  small  school  ; 
vier. 

,  low  long  did  she,  'to  your  knowledge,  at- 
1  lie  Sunday  School?  A.  I  could  not  tell 
e  ct  time. 

:■  onsiderable  time  ?  A.  Yes  ;  she  did  not 
n  so  very  regularly  ;  but  until  she  was 
rl  and  sometime  after  she  was  married. 

,  '0  you  recollect  seeing  her  after  she  was 
T-l  ?  A.  Yes. 

here  she  attended  up  to  May  two  years 
?  A.  Yes. 

■  ow  was  her  conduct  ?  A.  Very  good, 
ner  I  saw  her  ;  she  was  always  very 
le 

No  cross-examhiation. 


Edwin  Holloway — Sworn. 

V  here  do  you  reside?  A.  38  Division 
-t. 

!•  rar  business  ?  A.  Machine  smith, 
i  p  you  know  the  accused,  Fanny  Hyde? 

•  ]>w  long  have  you  known  her?  A.  A 

•  (jsr  four  years. 

here  did  you  become  acquainted  with 

■  1 .  In  the  Bridge  street  Primitive  Metho- 
^Siday  School,  where  I  was  Superinten- 

■  1  you  recollect  the  year  she  commenced 
Qdr|g  that  school  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  the 
of  167  or  the  beginning  of  1868  ;  1867,  I 

1  a  think  it  was  in  1867  ?  A.  Yes. 

I  w  long  did  you  recollect  of  her  attend- 
tke  ?  A.  I  think  two  years  and  a  half. 


Q.  "What  was  her  conduct  during  that  period  ? 
A.  Excellent. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  Watson  at  that 
school  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  they  have  lived  during 
that  period  ?  A.  The  first  that  I  knew  where 
she  lived  was  in  Flushing  avenue,  near  Canton 
street,  if  I  am  not  mistaken. 

Q.  Did  she  remove  to  Williamsburgh  after 
that?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  she  continue  to  attend  that  Sunday 
School  after  that  ;  after  removing  to  Williams¬ 
burgh  ?  A.  Some  few  times. 

Q.  Was  she  in  the  habit  of  visiting  your 
house  ?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  at  times. 

Q.  Have  you  daughters  of  her  age  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  She  was  a  companion  of  your  daughters  ? 
A.  Not  a  companion  ;  only  came  from  the  Sab¬ 
bath  School  with  the  rest  of  the  scholars,  and 
sometimes  visiting. 

Q.  Did  Fanny’s  sister  attend  school  with  her  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir  ;  up  to  the  present  time, 

Q.  And  that  (pointing;  is  her  sister?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  What  was  Fanny’s  apparent  physical  con¬ 
dition  when  she  commenced  going  to  Sunday 
School  ?  A.  She  seemed  to  be  in  good  health. 

Q.  Did  she  possess  the  fullness  of  face  and 
color  of  her  sister  ?  A.  Some  little. 

Q.  Was  she  attentive  to  her  studies  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir  ;  very. 

Q.  Did  she  attend  church  as  well  as  the  Sab¬ 
bath  School  ?  A.  Yes  ;  part  of  the  time. 

No  cross-examination. 


John  Marr— Sworn. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live  ?  A.  263  Hester  street, 
N.  Y. 

Q.  What  is  your  business?  A,  Lace  manu¬ 
facturer. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  accused  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  she  at  any  time  work  for  you  ?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  F or  how  long  ?  A.  Pretty  nearly  two 
years. 

The  COURT.  —  What  years  ?  A.  From 
about  July,  ’65,  until  the  end  of  the  year  1867, 
or  the  beginning  of  1868. 

Q.  Was  she  an  industrious  girl  ?  A.  Very 
industrious. 

Q.  Her  conduct  ?  A.  It  was  perfectly  correct 
while  she  worked  for  me 

Q.  Was  she  in  the  habit  of  going  to  your 
house?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  have  daughters  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  About  her  age?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  was  her  disposition  toward  the  chil¬ 
dren  ?  A.  Very  kind. 

Q.  You  say  she  was  industrious—  more  than 
ordinarily  industrious  ?  A.  Yes  ;  she  was  more 
than  ordinarily  industrious,  and  more  than  or¬ 
dinarily  smart  at  her  work. 

Q.  Where  was  it  that  she  worked  for  you? 
A.  In  White  street,  N.  Y. 

Q.  At  the  net  business  ?  A.  Hair-net  business 
at  that  time. 


44 


Q.  Under  whose  particular  charge  was  she, 
while  with  you  ?  A.  Under  my  wife’s  charge. 

Cross-examination. 

Q.  How  many  daughters  had  you  ?  A.  Two. 

Q.  Their  ages  ?  A.  One  is  now  about  seven¬ 
teen. 

Q.  How  old  were  they  in  1865,  when  Mrs. 
Hyde  came  there  to  work  for  you?  A.  One 
would  be  about  ten  and  the  other  eleven. 

Q.  You  say  Mrs.  Hyde  was  uncommonly 
smart  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  at  her  work  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Was  not  she  very  intelligent  ?  A.  She 
was  quite  as  intelligent  as  any  girl  I  employed. 

Q.  Did  you  know  then  about  what  her  age 
was  ?  A.  No  ;  I  did  not  inquire  about  her  age. 

Q.  Did  you  form  any  judgment  as  to  her  age  ? 
A.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not  have  charge  of  the  girls  ; 
my  wife  had  charge  of  them. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  about  her  intelligence 
and  capacity  for  work?  A.  Because  I  had  to 
have  all  the  information  from  my  wife ;  and  I 
was  there  in  the  place  myself  and  saw. 

Q.  Then  you  speak  partially  from  the  infor¬ 
mation  from  your  wife?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  saw  her  yourself  enough  to  say  some¬ 
thing  about  that  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  If  you  saw  her  enough  to  say  about  her 
intelligence  and  smartness,  did  you  not  see  her 
enough  to  judge  something  of  her  age?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  is  your  judgment?  A.  She  was 
about  eleven  or  twelve. 


William  Newton — Sivorn. 

Q.  What  is  your  business?  A.  Lacemaker. 

Q.  Where  is  your  place  of  business  ?  A.  29 
Centre  street. 

Q.  Where  was  it  in  January'  last?  A.  I 
worked  in  the  same  place  I  work  now.  I  left 
when  he  sold  the  machines,  about  Christmas 
time. 

Q.  Where  before  that  did  you  work  ?  A.  For 
Mr.  Bachman,  from  July,  1869,  up  to  the  end 
of  1871. 

Q.  Where  then?  A.  39  Centre  street 

Q.  Did  you  ever  work  in  this  factory  in  Wil- 
liamsburgh  ?  A.  Yes  ;  that’s  Mr.  Bachman’s. 

Q.  This  business  was  carried  on  in  Mr.  Bach¬ 
man’s  name?  A.  Yes. 

Q,  You  know  Fanny  Hyde,  then?  A.  Yes; 
she  worked  there  when  I  went  there. 

The  COURT. — When  did  you  first  know 
her?  A.  In  1869. 

Q.  Where  ?  A.  At  Watson’s. 

Q.  Mr.  Watson  was  interested  in  the  busi¬ 
ness?  A.  Yes,  I  suppose  so,  but  his  name  was 
never  on  the  books. 

Q.  While  you  were  there  did  you  notice  the 
conduct  of  Mr.  Watson  to  Fanny  Hyde?  A. 
Yes,  certainly. 

Q.  Shite  what  it  was.  A.  Well,  it  would  be 
about  in  October  when  I  begun  to  take  notice, 
when  I  thought - 

Objected  to,  what  witness  thought. 

The  COURT. — Shite  what  you  saw.  A. 


Well,  what  attracted  my  attention  was— tl 
was  but  Fanny  and  two  more  girls  at  worl 
the  shop.  He  used  to  go  among  these  § 
and  skylark  with  them,  send  out  after  05- 
stews,  buy  candy  and  such  like  as  that  forth 
and  have  it  brought  in  the  shop. 

Q.  State  any  other  circumstances  ?  A. 
while  he  was  carrying  on  like  this,  after  he 
been  larking  with  them,  he  would  come 
my  alley,  and  I  have  said  to  him — 

Objected  to,  what  was  said  to  deceased. 

Q.  Answer  this  question  in  “Yes”  or  “1 
Had  you  spoken  to  him  with  reference  to 
freedom  ? 

Objected  to.  Objection  overruled. 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  go  to  his  boari 
house?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  time  of  day?  A.  It  would  be  v  : 
they  quit  at  night 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  follow  her  at  ; 
place  ?  A.  Well,  she  could  neither  stir  at . 
the  place,  neither  go  in  nor  out,  but  wha  i 
was  following  her,  both  before  she  was  mai  ( 
and  after. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  her  stopping  at  the  .  ] 
after  the  other  girls  left.  A.  Yes. 

The  COURT.— After  the  hours  of  labor- 1 
over?  A.  Yes;  we  would  all  be  going  awa;  > 
gether. 

Q.  Would  she  remain  in  consequence  of  ;■ 
thing  Watson  said  to  her  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  would  he  say  to  her  on  that  sub 

Objected  to. 

The  COURT.  —It  may  be  shown  whethei « 
stayed  voluntarily  or  by  his  invitation. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — It  is  a  strange  thing  al 
you  may  kill  a  man  and  close  his  mouth,  id 
then  justify  it  by  such  evidence  as  this.  ’ 
may  prove  any  acts  which  justify  killing  ijJ 
I  never  heard,  as  a  rule  of  law,  that  you  ij 
prove  the  declarations  of  a  party  deceased  ’I 
justification  for  killing  him. 

The  COURT.  —I  do  not  admit  it  as  a  ; 
fication,  but  to  show  an  irresponsible  sta  ot 
mind  of  this  accused,  arising  from  a  ce  in 
state  of  facts  which  they  expect  to  establisl 

Mr.  BRITTON. — Then  because  Mr.  Wim 
asked  her  to  remain  afterwards,  and  his  de< .» 
tion  to  her  induced  her  to  remain,  tends  to  )* 
the  irresponsibility'  of  this  defendant  two  in 
afterwards  in  killing  him?  I  urge  this  co 
the  Court,  inasmuch  as  the  people,  in  ca  d 
error,  have  no  remedy.  I  ask  your  Hono  to 
give  us  the  benefit  of  the  consideration  of  ai* 
question  ;  and,  of  course,  we  defer  to  the  r  ng 
with  entire  respect. 

The  COURT. — We  don’t  think  we  are  (lib¬ 
erty  to  reject  the  question,  having  in  vie-  ln- 
class  of  testimony  and  the  practice  in  si  l*r 
trials  in  this  State  and  elsewhere. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — Do  I  understand  this  r  ng 
to  go  to  the  declarations  of  the  deceased  re- 
after  on  all  occasions. 

The  COURT. — I  don’t  propose  to  liavmj 
ruling  on  the  question  go  further  than  tin- 
tion  to  which  it  applies.  I  propose  to  noe 
to  myself  the  right  to  overrule  a  question.  <fli 
can  exercise  the  right  to  object  at  all  pr>' 
times. 


45 


!  When»he  would  require  her  to  remain  after 
others  had  gone  away,  he  would  say, 
my,  come  and  finish  a  few  of  these  nets 
Come  and  cut  me  some  nets or  made 
rxcuse  like  that. 

,  Were  there  any  persons,  to  your  knowl- 
;  remaining  in  the  shop  at  that  time  ?  A. 

[  know  there  were  no  persons  there,  only 
.  Batson  and  Fanny. 

{  About  how  many  were  working  in  that 
lng?  A.  Well,  at  the  time  I  first  went 
i  there  might  have  been  eight  or  ten  girls 
i  working. 

{Do  you  know  that  girl  (exhibiting  a  pho- 
rih)?  A.  Yes  ;  that’s  Eliza  Jackson. 
{Where  did  she  work?  A.  In  the  same 
ps  we  did. 

{.  ? or  about  what  time  did  you  work  in  the 
J  When  did  you  leave?  A.  I  worked 
r<  ibout  two  and  a-half  years.  I  left  the 
euart  of  1871. 

»  Yhat  time  in  1871  did  you  leave?  A. 
11 1  would  be  when  he  sold  the  machines. 
n  Id  be  a  week  or  two  before  Christmas,  I 
ei 

!■  >o  you  know  how  many  separate  estab- 
nits  that  building  had  at  that  time?  A. 

;  oree  on  that  floor.  It  was  divided  into 
;e  hops. 

!•  here  were  some  on  other  floors  in  the 
ie  ailding?  A.  There  was  a  clock  shop  un¬ 
it  h,  and  under  that  a  weaving  shop,  and 
e:  that,  on  the  ground  floor,  the  smith’s 
p.  There  were  different  compartments  in 
faory. 

•  as  there  a  closet  on  the  first  two  floors? 

7 

,  pu  were  not  there  during  the  month  of 
U0r  last?  A.  Yes;  I  think  they  sold  the 
kiss  in  January.  I  expected  to  go  to  work 
'e  *ain,  but  did  not ;  thev  sold  the  ma¬ 
les, 

)  you  know  the  fact  of  the  closet  on  the 
'I  ];or  being  out  of  repair  in  January  last? 
'fcfir. 

]>w  often  would  this  occur— Fanny  and 
Ytson  remaining  after  the  other  girls? 
'>ofe  two  or  three  times ;  maybe  three  or 
ti  es. 

h  you  know  how  long  they  remained  in 
rop  on  these  occasions?  A.  No. 

Cross-examined. 

II  you  work  in  this  factory  last  summer? 
tea 

Ys  not  there  a  time  last  summer  when 
iua;inery  was  not  at  work?  A.  It  stopped 
uly 

Ew  long  was  it  that  there  was  no  work 
e  ?  L  There  never  was  any  more  done 
e.  »  ■ 

Yen  was  it  that  they  stopped  off?  A. 
at .  ly  or  August. 

D  you  know  when  Mr.  Watson  went  up 
ew  ritain?  A.  Yes,  I  recollect  the  time. 

'Ym  was  that?  A.  It  would  be  in  the 
Qni  ;  of  June. 

•Y  you  sure  he  did  not  go  up  there  and 
aef  his  work  in  March?  A.  I  don’t 


know  ;  I  am  not  certain  ;  I  worked  at  the  other 
place  after  he  went  there. 

Q.  He  went  away  at  that  time  up  in  the  coun¬ 
try?  A.  Yes;  he  went  to  look  after  the  ma¬ 
chines  in  New  Britain. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  long  he  stayed  up 
there?  A.  No,  I  cannot  tell  exactly. 

Q.  Did  not  he  stay  there  until  along  down 
towards  October?  A.  Yes :  two  or  three 
months. 

Q.  Then  he  did  not  come  here  to  this  factory  ? 
A.  He  came  to  this  factory  when  he  brought  the 
machines  over. 

Q.  He  did  not  stay  in  this  factory  while  the 
machinery  was  running  in  New  Britain?  A, 
No. 

Q.  Where  was  Mrs.  Hyde  during  that  period? 
A.  She  went  there  to  work,  too. 

Q  How  long  after  he  went  on  did  she  go  up  ? 
A.  I  could  not  tell ;  she  did  not  work  in  our 
shop. 

Q.  When  he  went  to  New  Britain  she  did  not 
work  in  the  shop  here?  A.  I  could  not  say ; 
she  was  not  in  the  shop  for  a  long  time. 

Q.  How  long  would  you  say,  one,  two,  or 
three  months  ?  A.  Might  be ;  could  not  say. 
She  did  work  out  of  the  shop. 

Q.  When  she  was  not  working  in  the  shop, 
before  he  went  to  New  Britain,  did  she  com6 
there  for  work  to  take  home  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Nets  to  make,  and  made  them  at  home, 
and  brought  them  to  the  shop  as  the  result  of 
her  work  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  your  own  knowledge  how 
she  came  to  go  to  New  Britain  ?  A.  I  do  not. 

I  could  tell  one  thing,  they  were  short  of  brass 
bobbin  winding,  she  went  to  wind  the  brass 
bobbins. 

Q.  Being  experienced  in  that  line  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  know  when  she  came  back  ?  A. 
No  ;  a  considerable  time  before  Mr.  Watson. 

Q.  Then  did  you  know  where  she  went  when 
she  came  back  before  Watson  did?  A.  No. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  she  worked 
in  this  factory  here  ?  A.  I  believe  she  did  nets 
for  her  father.  She  went  to  live  in  Wythe  ave. 
Q.  She  had  a  husband  then  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Had  a  husband  when  she  went  to  New 
Britain?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where  was  her  father’s  place?  A.  The 
same  factory. 

Q.  How  long  did  she  continue  to  make  nets 
for  her  father  ?  A.  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  When  do  you  know  she  found  work  in 
Bachman’s  place  ?  A.  In  January. 

Q.  The  first  time  you  saw  her  there  after  re¬ 
turning  from  New  Britain  ?  A.  It  would  be  in 
January. 

Q.  Were  you  to  work  there  during  that  time? 
A.  No,  sir  ;  there  was  no  work  for  me  to  do. 
But  I  used  to  go  to  the  shop  pretty  nearly  every 
day. 

Q.  You  say  there  were  different  compartments 
in  this  factory  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Machinery,  and  working  men  and  work¬ 
ing  women  in  these  parts  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  the  rooms  of  these  different  compart¬ 
ments  on  the  same  floor  communicate,  or  did 
doors  lead  into  the  hall?  A.  They  were  all 
partitioned  off  in  the  different  shops. 


46 


Q.  There  -was  no  communication  between 
each,  except| through  the  hall?  A.  No. 

Q.  The  door  from  each  led  into  the  hall  ?  A. 
Yes,  on  the  top  floor. 

Q.  Which  floor  was  it  Mr.  Bachman  occupied  ? 
A.  The  two  top  floors. 

Q.  Was  the  top  floor  the  one  you  referred  to 
where  Mr.  Watson  remained  after  work?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  You  say  that  three  or  four  times,  to  the 
best  of  your  recollection,  she  remained  at  his  re¬ 
quest?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  do  you  say  he  said  to  her  ?  A.  He 
would  ask  her  to  come  and  finish  him  some 
nets,  or  something  of  that  like. 

Q.  That  was  before  the  hands  left?  A.  Just 
as  we  were  going  out. 

Q.  You  heard  it  and  the  others  heard  it?  A. 
Yes  ;  I  suppose  they  heard  it. 

Q.  They  were  where  they  could  have  heard 
it?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  notice  that?  A.  In 
the  faU  of  1869. 

Q.  Was  she  married  then?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  was  that  before  she  was  mar¬ 
ried?  A.  Months. 

Q.  How  long?  A.  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  Can  you  fix  the  time  of  the  year?  A.  It 
would  be  in  1870  when  she  was  married. 

Q.  Can  you  fix  the  time  of  year  when  you 
first  noticed  her  remaining  at  the  request  of 
Mr.  Watson?  A.  November,  1869. 

Q.  State  just  what  he  said  to  her.  A.  I  have 
stated.  He  asked  her  if  she  would  stop  and 
get  some  nets  at  one  time,  and  at  another  time 
he  asked  her  to  finish  some  nets. 

Q.  She  was  then  working  at  nets?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Before  you  left  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anything  more  of  them  ?  A. 
No. 

Q.  And  that’s  the  occasion  where,  you  said  in 
your  direct  examination,  he  made  excuses  like 
that ;  that  is,  what  you  call  excuses  ?  A.  Yes,  of 
course. 

Q.  You  don’t  know  what  occurred  there  ?  A. 
I  do  not 

Q.  How  far  apart  were  these  occasions  these 
three  or  four  times?  A.  Within  a  week,  or  per¬ 
haps  two  or  three  weeks. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  any  instance  of  his  ask¬ 
ing  anybody  else  to  stop  ?  A.  No  ;  there  were 
but  two  others  there  at  that  time. 

Q.  You  say  he  followed  her  everywhere ; 
when  was  this  following?  A.  It  commenced 
about  October,  1869. 

Q.  When  did  it  terminate— if  at  all?  A.  I 
guess  it  never  did  terminate. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  see  it  continue?  A. 
Every  time  she  came  in  the  shop. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  there  ?  A.  I  was 
working  there  steadily. 

Q.  Down  to  what  period  ?  A.  For  two  years 
anyhow. 

Q.  From  the  fall  of  ’69,  for  two  years  you  say 
you  saw  him  following  her  everywhere?  A. 
No,  I  did  not  say  for  two  years,  I  did  all  the 
time  she  was  there. 

Q.  I  ask  you  again,  from  what  time  to  what 
time  did  you  notice  him  follow  her  everywhere, 


as  you  say  ?  A.  Until  the  time  they  went  i 
New  Britain,  1871. 

Q.  During  that  period  state  an j*  specific  i 
casionswhen  you  saw  him  following  her?  , 
I  have  seen  him  follow  her  out  of  the  shop  : 
the  landing,  and  out  of  one  shop  into  the  otl  • 

Q.  Out  of  what  shop — the  shop  where  ;i 
was  at  work,  the  weaving  shop  ?  A.  Yes. 

I  Q.  She  went  ahead  and  he  followed?  A. I , 

Q.  How  soon  after  ?  A.  Perhaps  a  minut 1 

Q.  That  is  one  instance ;  tell  us  another  i 
stance.  A.  ’Undreds  of  them. 

Q.  When  is  the  next  occasion?  A.  Mj 
times  a  day. 

Q.  State  specific  occasions  when  you  saw  :1 
following  her.  A.  I  saw  him  follow  her  e'J 
time  she  went  out  of  the  door. 

Q,  You  have  stated  one  occasion  when  i 
saw  him  follow  her  from  your  room  into  a 
weaving  room,  now  state  another  ?  A.  I  to  j 
she  went  down  into  the  weaving  room  on  b 
occasion,  but  as  a  general  thing  I  don’t  ki  a 
where  she  went,  out  on  the  landing  I  suppo 

Q.  State  any  other  place  or  occasion  ?  A  i 
score  or  more  times  on  the  landing.  One  tu 
they  were  talking  together  outside  on  the  to  J 
the  stairs. 

Q.  The  hallway,  top  of  which  stairs?  I 
The  third  flight. 

Q.  You  saw  them  go  out  of  the  room  wli 
they  worked,  she  first  and  he  following  anil 
the  landing  of  the  stairs,  and  they  ta  lkedn 
gether?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Is  that  all  about  that  ?  A.  Not  exactl; 

Q.  What  else  ?  A.  I  have  seen  him  with  i 
arm  around  her  neck  kissing  her. 

Q.  How  many  times?  A.  Once. 

Q.  What  was  she  doing?  A.  Letting  I 
kiss  her. 

Q.  She  did  not  make  any  resistance  ?  | 

did  not  see  her. 

Q.  When  was  that  first  particular  occasai 
A.  In  November,  1869. 

Q.  What  time  of  the  day  was  it  ?  A.  >< 
tween  two  and  three  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Did  you  come  out  suddenly  on  them  ?  A 
I  opened  the  door  and  looked  out 

Q.  Anybody  could  open  the  door  and  ol 
out?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  then  ?  A.  Then  I  went  in  agai 

Q.  Did  they  make  any  movement  to  incUt 
they  saw  you  ?  A.  No. 

Q.  Was  anj-thing  done  by  which  you  cili 
tell  whether  they  did  see  you  ?  A.  I  am  ce  di 
they  did  not  see  me. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  look?  A.  I  jusm 
my  head  out  and  drew  it  in  again;  might  i* 
been  out  half  a  minute. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  whether  she  was  ki  n| 
him  ?  A.  No. 

Q.  Where  was  he  kissing  her?  A.  OrJ» 
face. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  face?  A.  KissingM 
face;  it  might  be  on  the  cheek,  might  be oJUl 
mouth,  might  be  on  the  nose. 

Q.  Well,  he  could  not  kiss  all  over  her  ftp • 
one.  time  unless  his  mouth  was  larger  tl )  i 
think  it  was  ?  A.  He  put  his  mouth  dowiflu 
that,  (illustrating!. 


47 


The  side  of  her  face  ?  A.  Yes. 
i  Which  arm  did  he  have  around  her  ?  .  A. 
!.e  left  arm. 

}.  Both  standing  up  ?  A.  Both  standing. 

J.  How  large  a  man  is  Mr.  Watson?  A.  5 
it  9. 

J.  You  have  stated  two  occasions — state  an- 
:ier  occasion  when  you  saw  him  following  her 
I  m  place  to  place  ?  A.  I  could  not  tell  where, 
lave  seen  them  going  out. 
j.  Witness,  answer  my  question.  State 
uether  or  not  you  can  or  not  tell  another  par- 
;  liar  occasion  of  his  following  her.  A.  I  have 
in  him  go  out  day  after  day  several  times  ;  I 
:  inot  state  any  more. 

i-  Can  you  specify  any  particular  occasion  ? 

•  No. 

J.  Did  you  ever  see  him  follow  her  any- 
1  ere  else  except  from  one  work  room  to  an- 
) er,  or  out  on  the  stairway?  A.  No,  I  don’t 
[>w  as  I  did. 

Re-direct. 

(.  You  have  seen  him  follow  her  out  and  did 
1  know  where  they  went  ?  A.  I  did  not  know 
i;re  they  were  going  to. 

).  You  say  she  was  not  working  in  March, 

■  I  ?  do  you  recollect  her  going  to  Washington 
uer  mother-in-laws  to  be  attended  medically? 
il  know  she  could  go  there,  but  could  not 
s  what  time  it  was. 

1.  Her  husband  went  up  to  New  Britain  also  ? 
i  Yes. 

|,  He  went  up  there  before  she  went  up  ?  A. 
n  not  certain,  I  believe  he  did. 

.  The  machinery  that  is  used  in  that  building 
3  :es  a  good  deal  of  noise  in  its  operation  ?  A. 

.  So  that  you  can’t  hear  conversation  in  the 
:a?  A.  You  have  got  to  be  very  close  to- 
f  er  if  you  would  do  it. 

You  could  not  hear  them  converse  in  the 
!?  A.  No. 

What  time  of  day  was  this  that  you  saw 
i  in  with  his  arm  around  her  neck  ?  A.  Be- 
'  n  two  and  three  o’clock  in  the  afternoon. 

Re-cross. 

Do  you  know  she  went  to  her  mother- 
1  w  for  medical  aid?  A.  I  don't  know  what 
]  vent  for. 


Alexandre  Amos — Sworn. 

'  Where  do  you  live  ?  A.  37  Reade  Street, 
(  York. 

1  Business?  A.  Lace  Maker. 

1  Do  you  know  the  accused  here,  Fanny 
i)?  A.  Yes. 

I  How  long  have  you  known  her?  A.  A 
tf  over  four  years. 

1  Where  did  you  first  become  acquainted 
i  her  ?  A.  At  her  father’s  house. 

1  Did  you  know  Mr.  Watson?  A.  Yes. 

1  Did  you  ever  work  in  that  factory?  A. 

•  When  was  that?  A.  I  commenced  to  work 


the  1st  of  October,  1868.  I  worked  there  until 
the  latter  end  of  July,  1869,  the  first  time. 

Q.  Was  Fanny  Hyde  working  there  at  that 
time  ?  A.  She  came  to  work  there  about  three 
months  after  I  went  there.  That  would  bring 
it  about  January,  1869. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  Mr.  Watson’s  conduct  to¬ 
ward  Fanny?  A.  Not  at  first  I  did  not;  but 
sometime  afterwards  I  did. 

Q.  State  what  attracted  your  attention.  A. 
I  always  used  to  think — 

The  COURT.  —  State  what  you  saw ;  not  your 
thoughts.  A.  I  could  not  hear,  but  I  saw  him 
speaking  to  her  frequently  and  the  other  girls 
with  a  smile  on  his  countenance  and  all  that. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  speak  to  Mr.  Watson  about 
his  conduct  toward  Fanny  and  the  girls  ?  A. 
The  second  time  I  worked  there  I  did,  but  not 
the  first. 

Q.  You  left  and  then  returned?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  when  was  it  that  you  returned  ?  A. 
In  ’71  January. 

Q.  What  did  you  notice  as  to  his  conduct 
after  you  returned  ?  A.  I  noticed  that  he  al¬ 
ways  paid  particular  attention  to  Fanny. 

Q.  State,  as  near  as  you  can,  what  the  atten¬ 
tions  were.  A.  It  affected  me  so  much - . 

The  COURT.  -  What  did  you  see  ?  A.  I  saw 
him  pay  particular  attention  to  Fanny. 

Q.  Specify  what  you  mean  ?  A.  Speaking  to 
them  over  their  shoulders,  tapping  them  on  the 
shoulders,  looking  them  in  the  face  and  laugh¬ 
ing,  &c. 

Q.  You  say  you  spoke  to  him  about  it  ?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  him  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  spoke  to  him  with  reference  to  his 
familiarity  with  the  girl  ? 

Objected  to. 

Q.  Was  that  the  subject  of  which  you  spoke? 
The  COURT. — I  am  inclined  to  think  you 
have  the  fact.  His  attention  to  these  girls  at¬ 
tracted  the  attention  of  the  witness.  Mr.  Wat¬ 
son  being  dead,  I  do  not  know  as  you  want  to  go 
any  further  into  this  particular  branch  of  the, 
case. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — I  believe  your  Honor  has  in¬ 
timated  that  it  was  proper  to  ask  what  Mr. 
Watson  said  in  reply. 

The  COURT. — If  I  have  ruled  it  in,  I  will 
adhere  to  that  ruling.  I  should  have  to  limit 
you  to  any  remarks  in  connection  with  the 
accused. 

Q.  State  all  that  you  can  recollect  upon  that 
subject ;  all  the  acts  of  Mr.  Watson  toward  the 
accused — acts  of  familiarity.  A.  I  went  up  to 

Mr.  Watson  and  told  him - . 

Objected  to. 

Q.  They  won’t  allow  you  to  tell  what  you  said 
to  him  or  he  said  to  you.  State  what  his  acts 
were  toward  the  girl ;  state  all  the  particulars. 
A.  I  have  seen  him  tap  them  over  the  shoulders 
and  look  them  into  the  face  when  he  ought  to 
be  paying  attention  to  the  work.  He  was  super¬ 
intendent  of  the  winding. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  follow  her  to  any 
place  ?  A.  I  didn’t  see  him  follow  her.  I  have 
seen  him,  when  he  was  coming  up  stairs,  turn 
to  the  left  when  there  were  two  or  three  girls. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  ask  that  this  witness  be 


48 


instructed  to  confine  his  answers  to  transactions 
between  the  defendant  and  deceased. 

Mr.  MOEBIS. — With  reference  to  Mrs.  Hyde 
particularly. 

A.  There  was  more  than  Mrs.  Hyde  there  at 
the  time  I  spoke  of.  I  have  seen  him  turn  to 
the  left  instead  of  going  to  the  right  into  the 
shop. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  girl  by  the  name  of  Jack- 
son  ?  A.  I  do. 

Q.  Did  she  work  there  at  the  time  you 
worked  there  ?  A.  I  believe  she  did. 

Q.  Do  you  know  about  how  old  she  was  ?  A. 
I  could  not  tell  one  way  or  the  other  ;  I  knew 
them  all. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  time  Fanny  went 
to  Washington  ?  A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  time  she  went  to  New 
Britain  ?  A.  I  heard  she  was  gone. 

Q.  Do  you  know  when  her  husband  went  up 
there.  A.  Only  by  hearsay. 

Q.  You  were  not  working  at  that  time  ?  A. 
No,  sir. 

A’o  cross-examination. 

The  Court  here  adjourned  until  the  next 
morning  at  10  o’clock,  having  instructed  the 
jurors  not  to  converse  upon  the  subject  among 
each  other  or  with  any  one  else. 

- «♦»-. - 

THIRD  DAY. 

Sarah  Marr — Sworn. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ?  A.  203  Astor. 

Q.  You  are  the  wife  of  John  Marr,  examined 
yesterday?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Fanny  Hyde  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  did  you  become  acquainted  with 
her  ?  A.  About  1865  ;  she  came  to  work  with 
me  for  Mr.  Marr. 

Q.  How  long  did  she  continue  there?  A.  Up 
to  January,  1867.  That  was  in  the  work  room. 
Her  name  was  then  Fanny  Windley. 

Q.  At  what  business?  A.  Making  hair  nets. 

Q.  Was  she  in  the  habit  of  visiting  your 
daughters?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  At  your  house?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  She  was  under  your  supervision?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  State  whether  she  conducted  herself  prop¬ 
erly  or  not.  A.  She  was  an  excellent  girl ;  was 
a  good  girl  in  the  work-room,  and  her  conduct, 
too,  was  very  good.  She  was  an  agreeable  and 
very  nice  girl ;  as  good  a  girl  as  I  would  wish 
to  have.  I  never  had  any  trouble  with  her. 
She  used  to  attend  the  Sabbath  school  with  one 
of  my  daughters,  and  generally  brought  her 
home.  Sometimes,  of  a  work-day,  when  the 
work  was  over,  she  would  come  and  play  with 
the  children,  so  that  I  saw  a  great  deal  of  her. 
In  fact,  she  was  with  me  more  than  6he  was  at 
her  own  home  at  one  time. 

Q.  What  Sabbath  school  did  she  attend  with 
your  daughters?  A.  The  Methodist  Church  in 
Hudson  street. 

Q.  Did  she  attend  the  Sabbath  school  during 


the  most  of  the  time  she  was  with  you  ? 
Yres,  the  greater  part  of  the  time  ;  perhi 
twelve  months. 

Q.  Mostly  in  company  with  your  daughte  ' 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  her  attending  any  selio  ' , 
A.  She  attended  night-school  in  Moore  Str. 
at  the  time  she  worked  with  me. 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  She  was  a  smart  girl,  too  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Smarter  than  girls  usually  of  her  &< ' 
A.  She  was  the  smartest  girl.  I  often  mi  ■ 
the  remark  to  girls  now  that  she  was  the  smt  l 
est  girl  I  ever  had  in  my  work-room. 

Q.  Yery  intelligent?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Superior  to  most  girls,  and  to  all  gi 
you  know  of  her  age  in  that  respect?  A.  t 
our  work-room. 

Q.  How  old  was  she  then  ?  A.  When  it 
left  me  she  was  pretty  nearly  fourteen ;  so  ;  j 
would  be  some  where  near  about  twelve.  1 
think  I  heard  her  say  she  was  fourteen  bef ; 
she  left  me  in  1867. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  she  went  when  > 
left  your  place  ?  A.  I  don’t  know  unless  *, 
came  along  here.  I  think  she  lived  out  a  li : 
while. 

Q.  What  circumstance  led  to  her  leav; 
you  ?  A.  I  had  a  young  girl  six  or  seven  yes, 
the  youngest,  and  they  kind  of  disagreed. 
was  a  little,  pettish  thing,  so  Fanny  complaii  1 
to  me.  I  think  her  father  thought  the  child  i 
took  advantage  of  Fanny.  She  complaii  1 
again  about  the  little  child  teasing  her.  I  sa1, 
“Fanny,  if  you  cannot  get  along,  you  may  ]t 
on  your  things  and  go.”  So  she  went,  but  u 
came  there  often  after  that. 

Q.  The  circumstance  you  have  stated  resul  1 
in  her  leaving  you  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

R -direct. 

Q.  After  that  she  was  in  the  habit  of  visit  ? 
your  house?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  you  spoke  of  her  being  smart,  ja 
have  reference  to  her  being  handy  at  her  wo:? 
A.  Yes. 

Re-coss. 

Q.  Didn’t  you  likewise  have  reference  to  r 
general  smartness  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  The  general  mental  smartness  as  wells 
physical  smartness  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  ,said  she  was  the  smartest  girl  u 
ever  knew  ?  A.  Yes,  in  our  work-room. 

Q.  She  was  smart  in  general  mental  peci- 
arities  as  any  girl  of  her  age  you  ever  had  the  ? 
A.  Yes,  a  smart,  good  girl. 


Edward  Weaving — Sworn. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live?  A.  562  Mye 
Avenue. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ?  A.  Mason. 

A.  Did  you  know  George  W.  Watson.  AI 
did. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Fanny  Hyde  ?  A.  I  did 
Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  Watson  going  i 
her  house  ?  A.  J  did. 


49 


On  more  than  one  occasion  ?  A.  Yes. 
When  as  near  as  yon  can  recollect?  A. 

I  first  time  I  ever  took  notice  of  it  was  the 
e  he  lived  in  Kent  Avenue,  about  the  middle 

st  January.  I  noticed  him  again  the  time 
u  were  living  in  Wythe  Avenue, 
i  What  time  of  day?  A.  The  first  time  I 
ic  particular  notice  of  it  -was  about  ten 
C3k  in  the  morning. 

(  In  Kent  Avenue  did  anything  occur  that 
:t  uted  your  attention  before  you  went  in  the 
313?  A.  No,  sir;  in  Wythe  Avenue  there 

i4 

(  State  what  it  was  ?  A.  I  went  in  there 
jt  Sunday  to  see  Mr.  Hyde.  On  entering  the 
x  I  heard  some  noise  inside,  but  didn’t 
ar  what  it  was. 

C  Was  it  loud  talking  ?  A.  Yes,  ’twas  loud 

II  ig,  but  I  couldn’t  understand  the  language, 
n  atering  the  room  Mr.  Watson  and  Fanny 
yi  were  sitting  together.  Mr.  Watson  had 
s  and  on  Fanny’s  shoulder,  and  after  I 
ifiid  he  moved  a  little  one  side  and  began 
Ik  g  to  me.  That  is  all  that  occurred  at  that 
nr 

QHow  often  have  you  seen  him  go  to  her 
u  ?  A.  I  have  noticed  it  in  particular 
re  or  four  times. 

Cross-examined. 

Q  What  kind  of  a  room  was  this  where  you 
v  iem  together  ?  A.  A  small  kitchen. 

(JWho  lived  at  that  house  ?  A.  Fanny 
.'•(l  and  her  husband. 

Q.Iid  they  keep  house  there  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.Chis  was  after  they  were  married?  A. 
es. 

Q.  lid  you  see  her  husband  when  you  was 
t'mn  that  occasion?  A.  No.  sir;  he  didn’t 
n  until  a  few  minutes  afterwards. 

Q-  le  came  in  while  you  were  there  ?  A. 
ss. 

4  low  long  after  you  entered  the  room  did 
1  ci  e  in  ?  A.  I  suppose  it  was  ten  minutes 
sc  He  promised  to  meet  me  there,  and  he 
s  :  t  hardly  on  time. 

Q-  ’id  he  come  in  that  room  ?  A.  He  did. 

I  Then  you  entered  the  room  what  part  of 
W3  they  sitting?  A.  On  the  left  as  I 
nt  l. 

Q-  nwhat?  A.  On  two  chairs. 

-■  ow  near  were  the  chairs  together?  A. 
fc'h  lose  together. 

I  ith  his  hand  where  ?  A.  Lying  on  her 
ul  r  in  a  careless  way. 

au  didn’t  hear  any  conversation  before 
’■a(  ddressed  to  you  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

I  ow  did  they  act  when  you  Went  in  there  ? 
jat  as  their  manner  ?  A.  Both  Mr.  Watson 
I  r  my  blushed  up  when  I  went  in. 

<■  ld  they  both  move?  A.  Watson  moved 
■  Fanny  sat  still.  He  moved  up  a  little 
setoward  the  window  where  I  was  sitting, 
v  as  you  pretty  well  acquainted  with  Mr. 
de  A.  I  was. 

>w  long  had  you  been  acqainted  ?  A.  I 
ox  must  have  been  close  on  five  years. 

was  a  friend  of  yours  ?  A.  Yes. 

. '  d  you  say  anything  to  Mr.  Hyde  on 

5  si  iect  ?  A.  I  did  not. 


Q.  Never  said  anything  to  him  about  it  ?  A. 
I  did  not. 


Isaac  P.  Maples — Sworn. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ?  A.  12  Wythe 
avenue. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ?  A.  Engineer. 

Q,  Were  you  acquainted  with  Mr.  Watson 
and  Fanny  Hyde ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  Watson  and  Fanny 
at  the  factory,  comer  of  South  Eleventh  and 
First  street?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  State  the  occasion  ?  A.  I  have  seen  them 
there  a  great  many  times 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  them  alone  together  in  a 
room?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  them  coming  alone  out 
of  a  room.  A.  Yes. 

Q.  State  the  circumstances  ?  A.  A  year  ago 
last  4th  of  July  week,  I  think  it  was  Thursday 
the  7th,  one  of  the  three  days  that  we  were 
lying  still— repairing  engine  and  boiler  ;  I  had 
got  through  my  engine  work  and  went  up  stairs 
to  fit  a  key  to  a  lock  of  a  door,  about  four  or 
five  feet  from  their  door  ?  while  fitting  the  key 
Fanny  came  out ;  I  heard  her  unlock  the  door, 
and  he  came  out  right  behind  her. 

Q.  The  door  was  locked  ?  A.  I  heard  the  bolt 
slide  when  she  took  hold  of  the  key,  and  heard 
her  take  hold  of  the  knob  after  turning  the  key. 

Q.  Were  there  any  other  persons  in  the  room? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  there  before  they 
came  out  ?  A.  It  might  have  been  ten  minutes 
before  they  came  out  ;  it  might  have  been 
longer. 

Q.  You  didn’t  see  them  go  in  ?  A.  No,  sir  ; 
I  didn’t  know  anybody  was  in  the  room. 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  Did  you  go  into  the  room  out  of  which 
they  come  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  ?  A.  Bight  away,  after  they  came 
out ;  they  left  the  door  open  and  went  down 
stairs. 

Q.  What  time  of  day  was  it  ?  A.  Afternoon, 
sometime. 

Q.  When  was  it  ?  A.  Fourth  of  July  week, 
a  year  ago,  either  Tuesday,  Wednesday,  or 
Thursday. 

Q.  Was  that  before  or  after  she  was  married? 
A.  That  I  cannot  say. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — She  was  married  two  years 
ago  this  coming  May. 

Q.  Was  anything  unusual  in  their  appearance  ? 
A.  She  blushed  some  and  he  colored  a  little. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  by  either  of  them  ?  A. 
They  were  talking  to  themselves,  I  did  not  pay 
any  attention. 

Q.  Nothing  said  to  you  ?  A.  No. 

Q.  Was  the  factory  running  then  ?  A.  No. 

Q.  Nobody  there  then  ?  A.  Only  in  the 
lower  part,  men  repairing  and  putting  up  shaft¬ 
ing  ? 

Q.  Was  there  any  one  else  about  the  building 
but  you  ?  A.  Yes,  a  number  down  stairs. 


50 


Q.  Have  you  any  knowledge  whether  there 
were  persons  on  the  upper  floors  ?  A.  I  am 
very  positive  there  were  not  on  the  top  floors. 

Q.  On  any  of  the  floors  except  the  lower  floor? 
A.  I  think  in  the  weaving  shop,  some  one  might 
have  been  working  there  ;  I  know  there  was  no 
one  on  the  top  floors. 

Q.  Which  floor  was  this  where  you  was  fitting 
the  key  ?  A.  Top  floor  ;  three  flights  up. 

Q.  When  you  went  into  the  room,  what  did 
you  observe  there  ?  A.  Nothing  unusual. 

Q.  Was  there  any  furniture?  A.  Machinery, 
net  looms,  work  table,  and  chairs. 

Q.  Is  that  all.  A.  Yes. 

Q.  All  the  furniture  which  appertained  to  the 
workroom?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  that  only?  A.  Yes. 


Mrs.  Kate  Lown — Sworn. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ?  A.  323  Kent  avenue. 
Q.  You  know  Fanny  Hyde?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  long  since  you  became  acquainted 
with  her  ?  A.  About  eighteen  months. 

Q.  Did  she  and  her  husband  board  with  you  ? 
A.  They  lived  at  my  house,  and  when  Mrs. 
Hyde  went  to  Washington,  Mr.  Hyde  boarded 
with  me  a  few  days,  while  she  was  away.  That 
was  in  March,  1871. 

Q.  How  long  was  Mrs.  Hyde  at  your  house  ? 
A.  Seven  months. 

Q.  She  left  about  March  to  go  to  Washington? 
A.  About  that  time,  but  I  don’t  remember  the 
date. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  George  W. 
Watson  ?  A.  Yes  ;  I  knew  him  by  sight. 

Q.  Was  he  in  the  habit  of  coming  to  the 
house  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  To  see  Mrs.  Hyde?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  F requently  ?  A.  I  should  call  it  frequently. 
Q.  "  hat  time  of  day  would  he  usually  come  ? 
A.  Well,  I  could  not  just  now  say,  sometimes 
in  the  morning  and  sometimes  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Would  that  be  in  the  absence  of  her  hus¬ 
band?  A.  Yes  ;  and  then  in  the  evening  some¬ 
times  when  her  husband  was  at  home. 

Q.  How  long  would  he  usually  stay  ?  A.  I 
could  not  exactly  say  how  long. 

THE  COURT. — Give  jrour  opinion. 

A.  Well,  perhaps  he  staid  an  hour  ;  perhaps 
longer  and  perhaps  shorter. 

Q.  When  she  returned  from  Washington  did 
she  return  to  the  house  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  long  did  she  remain  there  then  ?  A. 
A  few  weeks. 

Q.  She  went  to  New  Britain  after  she  returned  ? 
A.  As  far  as  that  is  concerned  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  How  long  was  she  absent  at  Washington  ? 
A.  J  think  she  went  to  be  gone  two  weeks; 
whether  she  staid  that  length  of  time,  I  cannot 
say. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  Fanny  speak  of 
Mr.  W’atson,  as  to  who  he  was?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  State  who  she  represented  him  to  be  ? 
Objected  to  and  withdrawn. 


Cross-examined. 

Q.  How  long  altogether  did  Mrs.  HydCve 
with  you  in  the  same  building  ?  A  1  ea 
months. 

Q.  Where  you  occupying  the  same  aparti  it 
with  her  ?  A.  She  had  four  separate  r 
from  me. 

Q.  You  didn’t  keep  house  together?  A,’o, 
sir. 

Q.  You  occupied  one  set  of  apartment  nc 
she  the  other?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Which  part  of  the  premises  did  she  oc  .py 
and  which  did  you  occupy  ?  A.  She  occ  ied 
four  rooms  in  front,  and  I  occupied  two  r  ms 
in  the  extension  and  rooms  up  stairs. 

Q.  What  sized  house  was  that  ?  A.  Tw>  ad 
a  half  story. 

Q.  She  kept  house  there  with  her  husl  .d  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  During  that  seven  months,  do  you  on 
where  she  worked  ?  A.  She  worked  ii  the 
house,  but  I  understood  she  worked  ii  the 
factory,  she  told  me  that  herself. 

Q.  Watson’s  factory  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  her  husband  w  at 
work  at  that  time  ?  A.  At  Mr.  Appleton'  art 
of  the  time,  and  part  of  the  time  in  the  ry. 

Q.  How  many  times  could  you  be  able  Ra¬ 
tify  that  Mr.  Watson  came  there  durin  the 
seven  months.  A.  Well,  I  would  be  will  ;  to 
say  a  half  a  dozen  times. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  particular  notice  iow 
long  he  staid  on  these  occasions  ?  A.  I  dtiot 

Q.  How  many  times  was  Mr.  Hyde  the  on 
these  occasions?  A.  Well,  Mr.  Hyde  was  fient 
at  his  work  when  Mr.  Watson  came  durii  the 
day.  In  the  evening  he  was  always  at  hoi. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Watson  come  as  frequently  the 
evening  as  in  the  day  time?  A.  I  think  h lid. 

Q.  Didn’t  he  come  more  frequently  i  the 
evening,  when  Mr.  Hyde  was  there,  than  hen 
not?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  don’t  think  he  did  ;  lout 
equally. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Watson  and  Hy<  to¬ 
gether  much  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  your  own  knoydge 
whether  or  not  the  relations  between  Mr.  yde 
and  Mr.  Watson  were  friendly  or  unfridly. 
A.  Friendly. 


Sarah  Webb — Sworn. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ?  A.  139  sson 
avenue. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Mr.  Watson  by  sigh  A. 
No,  sir. 

Q,  Did  you  ever  see  a  person  who  it  wi  said 
carried  on  the  manufactory'  of  hair-nets,  the 
comer  of  First  and  South  Eleventh  street'  A. 
No,  sir  ;  I  never  saw  him  fully  in  the  fac 
Q.  Did  you  see  him  enough  to  be  able  say 
whether  that,  was  the  man  ’'—(showing  >oto- 
graph. )  A.  I  could  not  tell. 

Q,  She  never  boarded  in  your  house  a  hie! 
A.  No,  sir  ;  she  had  apartments  in  our  bsa 
Q.  When  was  that?  A.  It  must  havbeec 


51 


0<t  September  a  year  ago  when  she  came 
le. 

No  cross-examination. 


Mary  Milford — Sworn. 

he  158  North  Fourth  street ;  am  acquainted 
it  Fanny  Hyde  ;  worked  in  the  same  shop 
it  her  ;  went  there  first  about  three  years  ago 
X left  about  two  years  ago;  Fanny  worked 
ie  while  I  did  ;  I  worked  for  Mr,  Watson 
ae 

C  Do  you  recollect  Fanny’s  remaining  in  the 
tic  with  Mr.  Watson  after  the  other  girls  had 
;ft it  night,  and  stopped  work?  A.  Yes. 

C  Do  you  know  how  she  came  to  remain  ? 
..  o,  sir. 

C  What  was  Mr.  Watson’s  conduct  towards 
aiy,  familiar? 
ejected  to. 

le  COURT. — Leave  out  the  word  familiar. 

(,  State  what  you  observed  of  his  actions  and 
m  ict  towards  her  ? 

(No  response.) 

Ie  COURT. — Did  you  see  any  action  or 
uuct  on  his  part  towards  Fanny  ?  A.  No, 
ir  lot  that  I  can  say. 

1  MORRIS. — You  understand  what  I  mean 
y  e  qnestion?  A.  No,  sir  ;  not  very  well. 

1}  COURT. — You  may  put  the  question 
in  ter  there  was  anything  familiar  to  direct 
ie  itness’  attention. 

Q I  wish  to  know  whether  you  noticed  any 
im  ar  conduct  on  his  part  towards  Fanny  ? 
..  ),  sir;  nothing  more  than  talking  together. 
Q  Was  he  in  the  habit  of  bringing  things  in 
ie  op  to  the  girls  ?  A.  Sometimes  ? 

Q  How  often  was  Fanny  in  the  habit  of  re- 
mi  ng  there  after  the  other  girls  left  ? 

Objection  to  the  word  habit. 

Q  How  often  have  you  seen  her  remain  there 
ite  the  other  girls  left  ?  A.  Four  or  five 
mi: 

Q  vVho  would  remain  there  with  her  ?  A. 
ir.  ,’atson. 

Cross-examined. 

Q  iVhat  was  Mrs.  Hyde’s  position  there  at 
is  ctory  at  that  time — was  not  she  fore- 
mi?  A.  Yes. 

Q  5he  had  charge  of  the  other  help  ?  A. 
es. 

QAnd  Mr.  Watson  worked  there,  taking 
enc  1  charge  of  the  business  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  low  many  were  at  work  there  at  that 
me  A.  Three  besides  Mr.  Watson. 

Q.  Vhen  the  hour  of  work  closed  there  were 
itly  jobs  unfinished  ?  A.  I  do  not  know. 
Q-  low  do  you  know  that  no  one  remained 
ml  scept  Watson  and  Mrs  Hyde  at  the  time 
(,n  intion  ?  A.  At  one  time  there  was  only 
an  mother  young  girl  working  there. 

Q-  ’ou  and  the  other  young  lady  went  away, 
ad  it’s  the  way  you  know  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q-  Ian  you  say  that  no  one  after  you  left  re- 
ian>  I  there  after  they  two  ?  A.  That’s  all  I 
DOT 


Q.  Might  there  not  have  been  some  other 
person  about  the  factory  after  you  left?  A.  Not 
that  I  can  say. 

Q.  There  were  more  working  than  these  two 
at  these  other  times  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  did’nt  always  leave  last  ?  A.  The 
men  genendly  went  out  before  we  did. 

Q.  Did  you  always  leave  the  last  of  the  girls  ? 
A.  We  both  went  together. 

Q.  Were  not  more  than  you  four  there  some 
of  the  time  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  many  were  there  during  that  period 
at  any  time  ?  A.  Only  one  as  I  can  recollect. 

Q.  You  went  away  and  left  them  there,  and 
saw  nothing  more  of  them  that  day  ?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  That’s  all  you  know  about  that  ?  A.  Yes. 

Re-direct. 

Q.  You  said  that  part  of  the  time  there  were 
no  other  girls  there.  State  whether  you  and 
the  other  two  girls  left  together  when  you  left 
at  night  ?  A.  She  was  not  all  of  the  time  up¬ 
stairs.  Sometimes  she  was  down  in  the  plush 
room  and  then  we  went  home  from  down  there. 

Q.  She  was  in  another  part  of  the  building  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Re-cross. 

Q.  There  were  others  there  sometimes  ?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  Generally  working  in  that  room?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  When  you  went  out,  you  girls,  you  left 
the  door  open  in  the  usual  way  ?  A.  We  al¬ 
ways  shut  the  top  door  behind  us.  The  street- 
door  was  always  open. 


Eliza  Jackson— Sworn. 

A.  I  worked  in  the  shop  with  Mr.  Watson, 
Fanny  and  the  last  witness. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  Fanny’s  remaining  in 
the  shop  after  the  other  girls  left  at  night  ?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  Who  remained  with  her  ?  A.  Mr.  Wat¬ 
son. 

Q.  Can  you  say  about  how  often?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  About  how  long  did  you  work  there  ?  A. 
Going  on  three  years,  altogether.  I  cannot 
say  how  long  I  worked  there  at  first. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  and  Fanny  work  there 
together  ?  A.  Until  the  March  before  she  was 
married, 

Q.  How  long  before  that  were  you  together  ? 

A.  I  don’t  know.  I  could  not  tell  when  I 
first  went  there. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  she  came  to  remain 
there  after  the  other  girls  left?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  long  she  would  remain 
after  they  had  left  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Watson  in  the  habit  of  bringing 
things  to  the  shop  for  the  girls  ? 

Objected  to  the  word  habit. 

Q.  Did  he  bring  things  in?  A.  Yes,  sir; 
there  were  things  brought  in. 


52 


The  COURT. — Refreshments?  A.  Cake — 
things  like  that. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  his  conduct  toward  Fanny? 
A.  No  more  than  they  were  friendly. 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  How  often  were  those  refreshments  brought 
in  while  you  were  there  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  ; 
may  be  once  a  week  or  may  be  once  in  two 
weeks. 

Q.  What  time  of  day  was  it  ordinarily  ?  A. 
It  was  generally  in  the  afternoon  or  before  din¬ 
ner. 

Q.  Brought  in  by  way  of  lunch  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  all  the  girls  and  parties  in  the  factory 
partook  of  it  ?  A.  Yes  ;  whoever  happened  to 
be  in  the  room. 

_ 


Arthur  M.  Thomas — Sworn. 

A.  I  live  a  t  63  Tyler  street,  Williamsburgh  ; 
business  is  foreman  of  a  paper  factory.  I  know 
Fanny  Hyde.  She  was  employed  in  that  insti¬ 
tution.  In  January,  1869,  I  resided  in  Flush¬ 
ing  avenue  and  she  resided  in  the  same  house. 

Q.  She  went  to  her  work  and  returned  in 
company  with  you  ?  A.  The  greater  portion 
of  the  time. 

Q.  How  long  did  she  work  there  ?  A.  About 
six  weeks, 

Q.  You  lived  in  the  house  with  her  about 
how  long  ?  A.  Altogether  about  one  year . 

Q.  From  what  you  saw  and  observed  of  her 
what  was  her  conduct  ? 

Objected  to,  unless  knowing  the  view  with 
which  the  question  is  asked. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — On  the  question  of  charac¬ 
ter. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — Then  I  don’t  object. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — We  open  the  door. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — All  right  ;  we’ll  walk  in. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — We’ll  open  it  wide.  Now 
what  was  her  conduct?  A.  Very  good. 

Q.  You  had  occasion,  when  she  didn’t  work 
in  your  house,  to  see  her  frequently  ?  A.  Very 
frequently. 

Q.  Did  she  used  to  come  to  your  apartments  ? 
A.  She  visited  my  apartments  continually. 

Q.  Had  you  a  family  ?  A.  I  had. 

Q.  Had  you  children  ?  A.  Two — small  ones. 

Q.  What  was  her  conduct  so  far  as  they  were 
concerned  ?  A.  She  was  very  fond  of  the  chil¬ 
dren,  and  they  were  exceedingly  fond  of  her. 

Q.  What  was  her  habit  as  to  being  home 
nights  ?  A.  She  was  usually  employed  making 
nets. 

Q.  State  whether  she  was  at  home  or  out  ? 
A.  She  was  at  home.  I  knew  of  very  few  even¬ 
ings  she  was  out  during  the  time  I  knew  her. 

Q.  With  whom  would  she  be  out  then  ?  A. 
Usually  accompanied  with  her  sister. 

Q.  When  did  you  remove  from  the  house  you 
occupied  ?  A.  In  February,  1870.  She  removed 
previous  to  that  in  September,  1869. 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  Be  kind  enough  to  state  between  the 
dates  she  lived  in  the  same  house  with  you  ?  A. 


From  the  1st  of  December,  1868— Dec  ih 
or  November,  I  am  not  positive  which- ntn 
the  1st  of  September,  1869. 

Q.  Did  you  know  for  whom  she  was  n  di 
the  nets  ?  A.  I  did  not  positively. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  she  took  the  ne  sb 
made  ?  A.  I  am  not  positive. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  her  the: 
was  in  that  business  ?  A.  He  was  not  tl  i  ii 
business  for  himself.  I  think  he  was  emj  yea 
in  that  trade. 

Q.  That  is  his  business  ?  A.  Yes. 


Thomas  Whittaker — Sworn. 

A.  I  live  at  502  Flushing  avenue ;  era 
knew  Mr.  Watson  ;  saw  him  about  half  anom 
after  he  was  shot,  but  he  was  laid  out  on  me- 
thing  up  in  one  of  the  rooms,  on  a  stretcl:  a 
a  bench,  or  something  up  from  the  floor. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  abrasions  of  the  hi 
A.  Yes  ;  there  were  some  marks  as  if  the.  hat 
been  a  scuffle  or  a  fight.  I  did  not  knor  her 
he  was  shot.  I  said,  ‘  ‘  Where  does  the  .(*  < 
come  from  ?  Of  course  that  could  not  11  : 
man.” 

Q.  What  in  your  judgment  was  it? 

Objected  to. 

Q.  Where  else  did  you  notice  any  abrioni 
of  the  face  ?  A.  I  didn’t  notice  anythin  bn 
scratches  on  his  head. 

(Witness  indicating  from  the  centre  ■  tin 
forehead  toward  each  side. ) 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  other  marks  on  h  fee 
than  those  you  have  described  on  his  fortad 
A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Were  there  any  marks  on  his  cheek  A 
I  didn’t  notice  any. 

Q.  How  much  did  you  examine  his  ft?  oi 
that  occasion  ?  A.  I  didn’t  examine  any  inc 
only  I  saw  scratches. 

(Witness  indicating  as  before  scratch;  a 
the  forehead. ) 

Q.  How  much  did  you  examine  his  face'the 
than  his  forehead  ?  A.  I  didn't  examintinj 
thing  other  than  looking  in  his  face  and  ein 
the  scratches  on  his  forehead. 

Q.  Do  you  swear  the  marks  ran  acrq  hi 
forehead  ?  A.  They  came  across  this  way 

(Witness  indicating  with  his  finger  mil 
scratches  from  the  centre  to  the  sides  hi 
forehead ) 

Q.  Commenced  in  the  centre  and  ran  •  th 
sides.  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Describe  the  marks?  A.  Like  a  sate, 
of  the  nails. 

Q.  Was  there  more  than  one  mark  oimc 
side  of  the  forehead?  A.  Yes,  a  good  msV- 

Q.  How  many?  A.  I  cannot  tell;  I  d  nc 
count  them. 

Q.  More  than  five?  A.  I  can’t  tell;  di 
not  count  them.  . 

Q.  Were  there  more  than  seven  ?  A.  I  on 
suppose  there  was. 

Q.  Do  you  know  ?  A.  I  am  sure  the:  ws 
not  that  many. 


53 


>low  do  you  know  there  wasn’t?  A.  I 
hink  there  were. 

\Jo  you  know  that  there  were  not  more 
o  seven  ?  A.  I  don’t  believe  there  was 

! 

i.)o  you  know?  A.  I  don’t  know  any- 
i  ibout  it;  I  don’t  believe  there  was. 
iJid  you  see  any  marks  on  the  forehead 
;  'ere  downward  or  upward  ?  A.  They 
e  ind  of  crosswise. 
li  ition  repeated. 

..  said  crossways  on  the  forehead. 

1.  )o  you  swear  you  saw  the  skin  broken  on 
1  ehead  at  all  ?  A.  Yes. 
yhat  is  your  business  ?  A.  I  keep  a 
y  7  store. 

;.  low  did  you  happen  to  go  there  on  that 
is  n  ?  A.  The  same  as  other  people.  They 
ic  a  and  collared  me,  and  I  went  to  see  the 
ie ;  other  people. 

!•  [ad  you  any  particular  business  there  ? 
N  I  went  as  a  casual  observer  there. 


Henry  Potts — Sioorn. 

■  eside  in  Division  Avenue;  business  is 
h 'eaver;  was  to  work  in  this  factory  on 

casion;  have  known  Fanny  Hyde  two 
i  rnlf  years ;  became  acquainted  with  her 
h 'actory;  was  in  the  habit  of  seeing  her 
iii'ltly;  was  in  the  factory  the  morning  on 
sl'ifr.  Watson  was  shot;  saw  Fanny  that 
a  ’  between  ten  and  eleven;  saw  her  at 
d<  •  of  the  plush  room  on  the  second  floor. 

hat  was  she  doing  at  the  door?  A.  I 
a  the  bench  when  I  heard  a  knocking  at 
di  r.  I  went  and  opened  it,  and  it  was 
ni  iyde. 

hat  did  she  do  ?  A.  I  let  her  in. 

■  .  d  she  say  anything  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

lere  did  she  go?  A.  She  went  to  the 
r-  iset. 

I  w  long  did  she  remain  there?  A.  I 
d  t  say. 

I I  you  wait  at  the  stove  at  any  time  ? 
v  ted  at  the  stove  some  time.  She  didn’t 
5  t  as  soon  as  I  expected,  and  I  went 
ti  pork. 

^  s  there  anything  in  her  appearance 
at  ,cted  your  attention  when  you  went  to 
do  and  saw  her  there?  A.  There  was 
tl  g  singular  about  her  appearance. 

I  cribe  it?  A.  I  could  hardly  describe 
nl  that  there  was  something  the  matter 
hi  that  is  all  I  could  tell. 

I  cribe  her  eyes  ?  A.  Her  eyes  were 
ni  wollen,  and  her  complexion  was  darker 
'MI 

y  it  sort  of  expression  did  she  have  ?  A. 

:  1 1  iow  that. 

B  /  did  she  appear;  what  did  her  face  indi- 
I  had  very  little  time  to  take  any  ap- 
,ut  because  she  passed  me  as  soon  as  I 
8(1  e  door ;  I  looked  her  in  the  face,  and 
0®  >ack  was  soon  on  me. 

D  she  have  her  usual  appearance.  A.  No, 

ts&fl 


Q.  Can  you  describe  it  any  more  fully  than 
you  have  ?  A.  I  guess  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  her  after  she  passed  and  went 
in  again  until  after  Mr.  Watson  was  shot?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Cross-Examined. 


Mary  Gleason — Sworn. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ;  A.  126  South  4th 
street ;  I  know  Fanny  Hyde  ;  she  is  not  related 
to  me  in  any  way  ;  have  been  acquainted  with 
her  a  year  and  a  half ;  am  on  friendly  terms. 

Q.  Were  you  at  work  in  this  factory  on  the 
morning  this  homicide  took  place?  A.  I  did 
not  work  in  the  factory  ;  I  took  work  out,  but  I 
was  there  that  morning  in  my  father’s  room, 
that  was  on  the  second  floor,  on  the  right. 

Q.  Who  was  in  that  room  ?  A.  I  could  not 
say,  two  or  three  girls,  I  do  not  know  who  they 
were. 

Q.  What  room  was  Fanny  working  at  the 
time  ?  A.  Mr.  Dexter’s,  I  believe  ;  I  am  not 
certain. 

Q.  Was  Fanny’s  step-mother  in  the  room  ? 
A.  She  was. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Fanny  that  morning?  A.  I 
did,  between  eleven  and  twelve  o’clock.  She 
came  in  the  room  where  I  was. 


Q.  If  I  understand  you  right,  you  just  opened 
the  door  and  let  her  in  ;  she  passed  along  and 
and  went  into  this  place  you  have  described  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  She  did  not  stop  at  all  ?  A.  She  only 
stopped  while  I  opened  the  door. 

Q.  She  was  at  the  door  when  you  opened  it  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  Then,  as  you  opened  it,  she  started  there 
and  did  not  stop  ?  A.  No. 

Q.  When  did  it  first  occur  to  you  that  there 
was  any  thing  peculiar  that  attracted  your  atten¬ 
tion  ?  A.  It  occurred  to  me  at  the  time-  -right 
away.  It  looked  as  though  she  had  been  crying, 
or  something  of  that  kind. 

Q.  Did  she  look  as  though  she  was  distressed  ? 
A.  I  could  not  tell  what  was  the  matter  with 
her. 

Q.  Her  face,  generally  is  pleasant  and  mild  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  She  did  not  generally  have  red  eyes  ?  A. 
No. 

Q.  You  never  saw  any  of  these  indications 
while  yon  were  there,  before  this  particular 
occasion?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  She  was  generally  cheerful?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Good-natured  ?  A.  Well  I  had  never 
much  to  say  to  her. 

Q.  In  appearance  she  was  lively,  cheerful  and 
good-natured?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Nothing  to  indicate  down  to  that  time  that 
she  was  not  entirely  happy?  A.  Well  I  don’t 
know  that  I  can  remember. 

Q.  You  don’t  remember  any  appearance  of 
that  kind?  A.  No. 

Q.  Nothing  distinguished  her  appearance 
from  anybody  else — in  other  words,  it  was 
natural  until  that  time  perfectly  ?  A.  Yes. 


54 


Q.  What  did  she  do  when  she  came  in  the 
room?  A.  She  came  in  and  spoke  to  her 
mother. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  what  she  said  ?  A.  No,  sir, 
I  did  not. 

Q.  Where  were  you  sitting,  how  near  ?  A. 
About  five  feet. 

Q.  Did  she  speak  to  you  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  her  usual  custom?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  anything  in  her  appear¬ 
ance  on  that  occasion,  how  did  she  look  ?  A. 
Very  wild  and  very  much  excited. 

Q.  What  did  she  do  after  she  spoke  to  her 
mother  ?  A.  She  turned  and  went  out. 

Q.  Was  she  facing  you  when  she  came  in  ? 
A.  Yes,  she  was. 

Q.  Can  you  describe  her  expression  more 
fully  ?  A.  I  don’t  know  as  I  can,  only  she  did 
not  look  natural. 

Cross-Examined. 

Q.  You  say  she  looked  wild  and  excited,  did 
she  look  like  a  person  in  anger  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  did  she  look  ?  A.  She  seemed  to  be 
very  much  agitated,  excitable,  and  looked  rather 
pale. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  persons  in  anger  look 
pale_?  A.  I  don’t  remember  as  I  have. 

Q.  You  don’t  know  the  fact  to  be  that  when 
angry  some  people  turn  pale  while  other  tem¬ 
peraments  turn  red  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  other  thing  besides  paleness  did  you 
see  indicating  excitement  ?  A.  She  seemed  to 
look  around  so  strangely. 

Q.  Can  you  be  a  little  more  definite  ?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  She  went  directly  to  her  mother  when  she 
came  in  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  was  she  talking  to  her  mother  ? 
A.  Two  minutes. 

Q.  Then  turned  around  and  went  out  ?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  Did  she  stop  from  the  time  she  entered 
the  door  until  she  got  where  her  mother  was  ? 
A.  No. 

Q.  How  far  was  her  mother  from  the  door  ? 
A.  As  far  as  from  you  to  the  rail — eight  feet. 

Q.  Where  was  you  standing  ?  A.  At  the 
other  end  of  the  table. 

Q.  Where  was  the  table?  A.  Opposite  the 
door  on  the  left  hand  side;  her  mother  sat  at  one 
end  and  I  at  the  other. 

Q.  How  long  was  the  table  ?  A.  Five  feet. 

Q.  She  went  directly  to  her  mother  at  one  end 
while  you  sat  at  the  other  end  five  feet  off?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  notice  her  ?  A.  When 
she  came  in  at  the  door. 

Q.  Did  she  walk  quickly  or  moderately  ?  A. 
Quickly,  and  went  to  her  mother  directly. 

Q,  When  she  turned  around,  did  you  see  her 
any  more  ?  A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  All  you  saw  of  her  was  from  the  time  she 
entered  the  door  until  she  reached  her  mother? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  did  it  first  occur  that  she  had  this 
look  you  mentioned  ?  A.  Right  away. 

Q,  Did  you  say  anything  to  anybody  on  the 
subject?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Then?  A.  No,  sir. 


Q.  Did  you  at  all  until  after  the  killin 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Never  mentioned  it  to  anybody  uu'  at 
the  killing?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  this  idea  sugge  d 
self  to  your  mind  after  you  had  found  tl  ] 
Watson  had  been  killed,  and  that  Fann® 
had  been  charged  with  killing  him?  .  Y 
sir. 

Q.  Was  not  that  the  time  that  it  first  om 
to’’  your  mind  that  there  was  something  m 
about  Mrs.  Hyde  that  morning ?  A.  Ned* 

Q,  After  this  killing  the  impressic  1 
greater  on  your  mind?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Have  you  talked  about  it  since? A 
number  of  times. 

Q.  As  you  talked  about  it  the  imj  Bsi 
grew  stronger  in  your  mind  ?  A.  I  don  ii 
it  has. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  if  you  had  n<afi 
wards  heard  of  the  killing,  and  Fan;  1 
not  been  charged  with  it,  that  you  won  la 
given  the  subject  of  her  appearance  oti 
thought  ?  A.  I  think  I  should. 

Q.  Who,  beside  the  mother  did  you  s  fri 
the  time  Fanny  came  in  there  until  you  ird 
the  killing  ?  A.  Other  girls  in  the  6hop  1  o 
not  tell  who  they  were. 

Q.  How  many  persons  did  you  see  wit  id 
time  ?  A.  I  saw  the  girls  and  my  own  Its. 

Q.  How  many  in  all  ?  A.  I  could  no  ay, 

Q.  Eight  or  ten?  A.  It  might  have  boJ 

Q.  Was  any  remark  made  to  you  on  h  ■ 
ject  of  her  appearance  by  any  other  pern? 
No,  sir. 

Q,  Before  the  killing  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  hear  any  conversation  on  1 1  a 
ject?  A.  No,  sir. 

Re-direcl. 

Q.  From  what  you  noticed  and  w  t  j 
heard  that  morning,  her  actions  and  appiul 
what  impression  was  made  upon  your  ind 
to  whether  she  was  in  her  right  mind  r  nl 

Objection  on  the  ground  that  only  xpe 
can  speak  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  MORRIS.  —The  Court  of  Appes  jj 
mit  that  precise  question. 

The  COURT. — To  non-professionals' 

Mr.  MORRIS. — To  non-professionalit  * 
question  asked  in  all  cases  where  vis  I 
tested. 

The  COURT. — Questions  have  been  :sfldj 
lay-witnesses  as  to  whether  such  appr&n 
indicate  soundness  or  unsoundness  duui 
Those  questions  have  been  frequentbpoW 
Court.  I  will  admit  the  question. 

A.  I  don’t  know,  I  think  she  was  noiu  I 
right  mind. 

lie-cross. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  testify,  do  you  int  l  m 
understood  to  say  that  at  that  time,  am  >n  d 
occasion  when  this  entrance  of  Mrs.  1  J 
eurred  that  it  then  was  an  impression  p  W 
mind  that  she  was  out  of  her  mind?  j.  ■ 
something  was  not  right, 

Q,  Was  there  an  impression  on  your  indi 
that  time,  on  that  occasion,  that  she  wi ;Outi 
her  mind  ?  A.  I  could  not  say  that  I  wug 


55 


I I  out  of  her  mind,  but  I  knew  it  was  not 

That  she  was  not  in  her  right  mind  ?  A. 
t  she  was. 

/hat  do  you  mean  by  saying  in  her  right 
]  A.  She  seemed  to  be  excited,  and  not 
1, 

ras  it  an  impression  on  your  mind  that 
1  not  her  faculties  ?  A.  I  do  not  know 
'8. 

’hat  she  hadn’t  her  senses  ?  A.  She 
’  et  as  if  she  had. 

as  that  the  impression  that  your  mind 
i  hat  time  ?  A.  I  cannot  say  for  certain. 

hat  was  the  impression  on  your  mind 
rime — that  she  did  not  know  what  she 
dng?  A.  I  could  not  say. 
m  you  say  that  it  was  or  was  not?  A. 

31 

ien  you  don’t  mean  to  say  either  way 
t  >ur  impression  was  on  that  subject  ?  A. 
u  not  like  to  say,  I  could  not. 

it  not  a  fact  that  it  did  not  occur  to  you 
a  ime  that  Mrs .  Hyde  did  not  know  what 
vi  doing?  A.  No,  sir  I  don’t  think  it  did. 

iu  don’t  think  that  it  occurred  to  you  ? 
ft  sir. 

d  it  occur  to  you  at  any  time  from  the 
s  i  came  in  at  the  door  and  spoke  to  her 
le  until  she  went  out  that  she  did  not 
v  aat  she  was  about  ?  A.  I  think  it  did. 

d  you  stood  within  five  feet  of  her 
le  md  never  spoke  to  her  mother  about  it ! 
d  not. 

1  at  she  did  not  know  what  she  was 
it  hat  she  was  crazy  in  other  words  ?  A.  I 

I I I  say  she  was  crazy. 

'iat  do  you  mean  by  saying  that  she 
t  now  what  she  was  about,  was  she — 
n  ited. )  A.  No,  sir,  she  might  have 
,  1 1  don’t  think  she  was. 

1  what  way  did  that  impress  you  that  she 
10  mow  what  she  was  about?  A.  Nothing 
■  t  n  her  actions. 

A  at  actions  indicated  that  she  did  not 
v  '  at  she  was  about  ?  A.  She  came  in  so 
fit  y. 

I  iv  singularly  ?  A.  I  can’t  express  it. 

A  at  actions  did  you  see  which  led  you 
di  ;  that  she  didn’t  know  what  she  was 
it?  4.  Nothing  more  than  coming  in  and 
g  Id. 

C  you  define  what  her  actions  were  ?  A. 

mji 

T  n,  impressed  as  your  mind  was,  on 
o<  sion,  on  the  spot,  that  she  did  not 
<  v  it  she  was  about,  you  never  spoke  to 
■lo  ;r  on  that  subject,  you  didn’t  ask  her 
ier  hat  she  said  to  her  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Y  never  interested  youself  about  that  ? 
fo,  r. 


Mary  Dexter — -Sworn. 

Y  are  an  aunt  of  Fanny  Hyde?  A.  Yes. 
0:  the  morning  of  the  homicide  of  Wat- 
yo:  was  iu  this  factory'  at  work  ?  A. 


Q.  Did  you  see  Fanny  that  morning?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  observe  anything  in  her  actions 
that  attracted  your  attention?  A.  Yes.  • 

Q.  State  the  first  it  was?  A.  I  went  and 
spoke  to  her  up  against  the  stove. 

Q.  Was  she  standing  or  sitting  ?  A.  Sitting. 

Q.  What  was  she  doing  there?  A.  She 
seemed  as  though  she  was  in  a  deep  study. 

Q.  What  time  of  the  morning  was  it  ? 

A.  As  near  as  I  can  guess,  I  believe  it  was 
about  eleven  o’clock. 

Q.  You  spoke  to  her,  what  did  you  say?  A. 
I  remarked  “  what  an  old  dress  she  had  on.” 

Q.  What  reply  did  she  make?  A.  She  said 
it  was  good  enough  for  her. 

Q.  What  else?  A.  She  said  she  wished  she 
was  dead. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  her  face  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  was  her  expression  or  appearance  ? 
A.  She  had  a  wild  appearance. 

Q.  As  to  color  ?  A.  Quite  pale. 

Q.  How  long  was  she  seated  at  the  stove  as 
you  describe?  A.  May  be  fifteen  minutes,  as 
near  as  I  can  guess. 

Q.  Did  she  use  the  words  as  you  have  given 
— “I  wish  I  was  dead  ” — or  were  they  preceded 
by  an  exclamation  ?  A.  She  said  she  wished 
she  was  dead,  and  I  asked  her  what  for ;  she 
said,  “a  good  many  things  ! ” 

Q.  Was  this  on  the  second  or  third  floor?  A. 
The  third  floor. 

Q.  Was  anything  the  matter  with  the  closets 
on  the  third  floor  ;  were  they  out  of  order  that 
morning  ?  A.  I’m  sure  I  cannot  tell ;  I  don’t 
believe  I  went  in  that  morning. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  plumbers  were 
in  there  that  morning  ?  A.  I  couldn’t  tell. 

Q.  Where  did  she  go  after  she  left  the  stove  ? 
A.  £  think  she  went  to  her  work  again  at  the 
table.  Q.  What  time  of  the  morning  was  this  ? 
A.  About  eleven  o’clock,  as  near  as  I  can  guess. 

Q.  You  were  there  when  she  left  the  room  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  time  was  that,  as  near  as  you  can 
recollect?  A.  About  a  quarter  to  twelve. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  when  she  went  to  work 
for  Watson  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  was  her  condition  as  to  health  at 
that  time  ?  A.  Very  good,  as  far  as  I  see. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  old  she  was  when  she 
went  to  work  for  Watson?  A.  I  believe  she 
was  about  fifteen. 

Q.  What  was  her  physical  appearance  at  the 
time  the  shooting  as  compared  to  what  it  was 
when  she  went  to  work  for  Watson  ?  A.  A  great 
deal  of  difference. 

Q.  State  in  what  respect  ?  A.  She  is  not  so 
stout  as  she  was  by  a  long  way. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  after  she  went  to  work  for 
Watson  any  change  in  any  other  respect?  A.  I 
don’t  know  whether  I  did  ;  she  got  very  care¬ 
less  about  her  work. 

Q.  How  was  it  with  regard  to  her  appear¬ 
ance  ?  A.  She  seemed  to  be  more  careless  about 
herself. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  anything  with  regard  to 
her  disposition  ?  A.  No,  I  think  she  was  about 
the  same. 

Q.  Did  you  know  her  grandfather  ?  A.  Yes, 
I  lived  in  the  house  with  him. 


56 


Q.  How  did  he  come  to  his  death?  A. 
Drowned. 

Q.  What  were  his  actions  previous  to  that  ? 
A.  Some  very  curious  actions. 

Q-  Can  you  refer  to  any  act  particularly  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  BRITTON,  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  totally  immaterial  and  irrelevant.  I 
suppose  the  purpose  is  to  show  that  there  was  in¬ 
sanity.  I  submit  that  we  cannot  test  that  ques¬ 
tion  here  in  that  way.  He  has  drawn  out  some 
peculiar  action  which  he  is  about  to  describe. 
If  he  had  ever  been  declared  to  be  insane  in  any 
legal  or  judicial  sense  it  would  be  competent. 
It  would  be  competent  to  prove  it,  perhaps,  by 
experts,  who  knew  him,  and  attended  to  him  ; 
but  I  submit  that  we  cannot  try  the  question 
here  whether  her  grandfather  had  become  insane, 
and  then  try  the  question  of  particular  acts  indi¬ 
cating  an  unsound  mind. 

The  COURT.— The  question  is  whether  mat¬ 
ters  happening  in  the  family  years  ago,  coming 
down  through  successive  members  of  the  family 
is  evidence  of  anything  happening  now.  If 
tradition  ascribes  the  grandfather  to  be  an  in¬ 
sane  man,  the  question  is  whether  you  can  get 
that  evidence  in  here. 

Mr.  BRITTON.— If  the  question  called  for 
any  such  thing  ;  but  the  witness  speaks  of  her 
own  knowledge  as  his  having  died  by  drowning, 
and  the  question  is,  what  were  his  acts  before 
that. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — We  have  a  right  to  prove 
this  back  to  the  fourth  and  fifth  generation  ;  any 
branch  of  the  family,  lineal  or  collateral.  And 
it  is  no  answer  that  that  should  be  proved  by  an 
expert.  We  can  take  the  opinion  of  any  per¬ 
son.  Upon  this  question  I  undertake  to  say 
that  there  has  never  been  a  case  tried  that 
the  evidence  on  this  point  has  not  been  gone 
into,  and  the  Courts  place  great  stress  on  that 
fact,  and  in  charging  juries  have  called  their  at¬ 
tention  to  this  as  one  of  the  predisposing 
causes. 

The  COURT. — I  understand  Mr.  Britton  not 
to  object  to  your  showing  the  state  of  mind  of 
any  of  the  ancestors  or  relatives  of  the  prisoner, 
but  that  this  witness  may  not  be  permitted  to 
testify  to  anything  in  the  career  of  the  grand¬ 
father. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — I  am  simply  proving  the  fact 
that  he  was  insane  ;  that  is  one  of  the  issues  to 
be  submitted  to  the  jury.  Counsel  says  we  can¬ 
not  try  that  issue.  Yes,  we  can  ;  that’s  one  of 
the  issues  we  are  trying  here. 

The  COURT,  to  Mr.  Britton. — Do  you  object 
to  the  state  of  the  mind  of  the  grandfather  at 
the  time  of  his  death? 

Mr.  BRITTON. -No,  sir. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — It  is  for  the  jury  to  draw  the 
inference. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — It  is  the  easiest  thing  in  the 
world  to  get  up  and  say,  “  there  never  was  a 
case.”  and  a  thing  “has  not  been  done;”  but 
that  don’t  establish  the  fact.  Now  I  concede,  as 
a  matter  of  law,  the  pertinence  of  proof  that 
the  ancestors  were  insane,  and  if  it  is  followed 
up  to  acts  tending  to  show  that  the  party  him¬ 
self  or  herself  was  insane,  it  will  be  perfectly 
competent,  because  insanity  is  supposed  to  be 
hereditary  ;  but  this  is  not  the  point.  It  is  a 


totally  collateral  issue,  sought  to  be  fc< 
the  statement  of  acts  of  this  grandfather 
he  was  drowned,  which  came  under  | 
servation  of  this  witness.  Now  I  would  b 
least,  before  your  Honor  decides  on  < 
question,  to  know  how  old  this  witnes 
and  to  show  her  capacity. 

The  COURT. — Certainly  ;  bring  that  c 
limiuarily. 

Q.  Where  did  her  grandfather  die?  1 
ton,  England. 

Q.  How  old  were  you  when  you  resid*  l 
with  him.  A.  Nineteen. 

Q.  How  old  were  you  when  he  died?  V 
is  eight  years  since  he  died.  I  was  in  thi  t 
try  when  he  died. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — She  swears  that  k 
from  drowning  ;  that  is  hearsay.  Do  yo  i 
it  is  competent  ? 

Mr.  MORRIS. — Certainly. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — Then  I  move  it  be  s.< 
out. 

The  COURT. — It  is  competent  to  pre 
death  in  that  way. 

By  JUDGE  MORRIS.— From  what  u 
of  her  grandfather,  from  his  acts  and  p 
ances,  what  impression  was  made  upo 
mind  as  to  whether  he  was  in  his  right  1  c 
not? 

Objection. 

A.  I  did  not  think  he  was. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  move  to  strike  o, 
answer. 

The  COURT. — Suppose  Jfidge  Morrisi 
his  question,  ‘  ‘  What  was  the  belief  in  t 
ily  as  to  the  condition  of  his  mind?”  J 
object  to  that  ? 

Mr.  BRITTON.— I  do,  under  this  | 
facts.  This  man  died,  according  to  las 
ment,  when  she  was  here,  several  yea:  I 
she  left, 

WITNESS. — A  little  over  eight  years.  , 

Mr.  BRITTON. -She  had  been  awa 
there  eight  years  before  he  died.  Now  a 
question  was,  “What  were  the.  indicalM 
insanity?”  The  question  offers  to  pn 
peculiarities  eight  years  before  his  death 
she  was  there.  I  urge  this  objection  tl  i 
strenuously,  as  it  is  totally  impassible  f  t 
any  way  to  meet  such  testimony  as  this.  1 
the  Court  to  hold  the  scales  of  justice  . 
ruling  equally,  because  there  is  no  possi'i 
meeting  any  error  on  that  subject 

Mr.  MORRIS. — I  don’t  know,  but  It 
for  granted  that  this  prisoner  is  not  to  1 
because  it  might  not  be  in  the  powei 
prosecution  to  contradict  evidence  that  v  ( 
She  is  to  be  tried  on  the  facts  and  evideia 
evidence  is  not  to  be  excluded  because  i 
in  the  power  of  the  District  Attorney  top 
diet  it.  I  have  never  heard  such  an  mi 
in  a  case  involving  life  and  death  not  fi 
evidence  is  not  competent,  but  that  it  slji 
excluded  because  “we  have  not  the  pH 
contradict  it.” 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  have  not  made  jc 
argument  or  request. 

Mr.  MORRIS. —That  is  the  inference 
Honor  is  urged  to  exclude  this  question  >i 
it  is  not  in  the  power  of  the  prosecution) 


57 


it  it.  That  is  one  of  the  considerations 
sed  to  the  Court.  The  counsel  says  it  is 
>mpetent  to  prove  the  condition  of  the 
ather  eight  years  prior  to  his  death. 

I  if  I  understand  the  rule  on  this  question 
is  :  We  have  a  right  to  prove  a  party  in- 
•t  any  time,  and  when  we  have  proven 
ct,  the  Law  presumes  that  that  condition 
ued  until  you  prove  it  changed  ;  and  if 
i  ve  that  he  was  insane  eight  years  before 
1  th,  the  law  presumes  he  continued  insane 
the  time  of  his  death,  until  the  contrary 
i/n.  Why,  how  could  we  offer  proof  of 
c  y  on  the  part  of  any  member  of  the  fam- 
?he  Courts  hold  that  you  may  prove  it  in 
1  nch  to  any  extent,  and  go  back  as  far  as 
p  proper.  Insanity  may  exist  in  the 
c  ther,  and  may  skip  a  generation,  or  two 
rions,  and  then  reappear.  But  the  object 
king  insanity  on  the  part  of  the  parents 
f  mdparents,  is  to  show  it  exists  in  the 
c  the  prisoner  as  a  predisposing  cause, 
i  rhich  all  the  authorities,  medical  and 
:i  attach  great  importance.  It  is  simply 
fjf  a  fact,  and  we  are  not  to  follow  that 
5  le  counsel  suggests,  and  show  that  in- 
J  as  continued  regularly  along  until  it  has 
u  this  person — by  no  means.  We  may 
e  existed  in  any  member  of  the  family, 
w  n  we  once  have  proved  it  to  exist,  we 
oven  a  predisposing  cause.  As  to  the 
L  he  jury  will  give  to  such  testimony  is 
at  question.  That  will  be  left  to  them 
r  e  instruction  of  the  Court.  They  can 
h  e  question  and  exercise  their  own  judg- 
d  common  sense,  and  say  the  weight 
d  ild  be  given  to  such  kind  of  testimony, 
q  stion  is  not  to  the  weight  of  the  evi- 
e,  it  as  to  its  competency.  I  did  not  sup- 
t  re  would  be  any  question  upon  this 
’  ^  Court  is  in  doubt,  I  can  suspend 
>n  oroduce  the  authorities  after  the  recess. 

•  LITTON.— Of  course  the  Court  will 
Ai  nderstand  me,  whether  the  counsel 
or  ot.  I  have  not  a  word  to  say — one 
t<  ard  gainsaying  all  his  statements  so  far 
" 1  to  prove  insanity  is  concerned.  All 
m  it  shall  be  proved  in  a  legal  way. 
is  1.  Now  I  submit  that  to  ask  this  wit- 
88  0  what  her  opinion  is  on  those  acts, 
iei  ane  or  insane,  is  not  competent.  It 
rei  tronger  evidence  in  case  of  a  homicide 
V1'  civil  procedure.  Calling  a  woman  on 
w  who  saw  the  party  eight  years  ago, 
irn  y  asking  her  a  question  whether  or 
1 1)  opmion  this  prisoner’s  grandfather 
e  or  not  at  that  time,  is  a  question 
3  f  |®pl  and  should  not  be  put. 

URT  — Suppose  they  should  ask  her 
t8  by  yellow  fever,  would  that  be 

B  TTON. — I  think  not,  if  she  had  not 
**?!  )r  eight  years. 

-  JRT.  She  would  be  competent  to 
re  ave  to  marriages,  deaths,  and  What¬ 
'S:  ln  family  tradition. 

.  TTON.— Would  it  be  competent  to 
ness  whether  her  grandfather  died  of 
nd  !f’  baymgr>  tiled  eight  years  ago  in 
.  ie  being  3, 000  miles  away  ? 


The  COURT. — If  it  comes  down  by  tradition 
— family  history.  This  is  a  collateral  ques¬ 
tion. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — If  there  is  any  tradition  in 
this  question  I  am  not  able  to  see  it.  - 
The  COURT. — On  that  ground,  that  tradi¬ 
tion  is  testimony,  the  Court  will  admit  evidence 
of  this  character. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — State  the  facts,  or  some  of 
the  facts,  on  which  you  base  your  opinion  ? 
Objected  to. 

Q.  State  the  facts  upon  which  you  found  that 
opinion  or  draw  that  inference  ? 

Objected  to.  Admitted. 

A.  I  have  known  him  to  take  laudanum — 
poison. 

Q.  What  was  the  understanding — do  you 
know  what  it  was  taken  for?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  understanding  in  his  fam¬ 
ily  V 

Objected  to  and  objection  overruled. 

A.  I  suppose  they  thought  he  was  going  to 
poison  himself. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  his  having  any  connec¬ 
tion  with  a  rope  ?  A.  Yes  ;  I  have  known  him 
to  take  it  up  stairs  to  hang  himself  with. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  known  him  to  sleep  with  a 
butcher  knife  under  his  pillow  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Was  it  not  understood  in  the  family  that 
he  was  out  of  his  mind  ? 

Objection  to  the  question  as  leading. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — That  is  a  proper  objection. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  time  Fanny  went  to 
Washington  last  spring?  A.  I  know  she  did  go 
to  Washington. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  time  it  was  ?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  why  she  went  to  Washing¬ 
ton— for  what  purpose  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Watson  in  the  room  talking 
with  her  that  morning  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  In  what  part  of  the  room?  A.  At  the 
table  where  they  were  working. 

Q.  What  time  was  that?  A.  I  could  not 
exactly  say  what  time  it  was. 

Q.  Was  the  machinery  in  operation  at  that 
time?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Could  you  hear  any  part  of  the  conversa¬ 
tion  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  The  machinery  in  that  room  makes  a  very 
loud  noise.  J 

Cross-examination. 

Q.  Were  you  examined  on  the  coroner’s  in¬ 
quest  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  about  this  remark 
you  have  testified  to  here  of  Mrs.  Hyde’s  on 
that  day?  A.  No,  sir;  I  was  not  asked  that. 

Q-  Were  not  you  asked  at  the  close  of  your 
evidence  on  that  day  to  state  any  other  fact  that 
you  knew  of  which  had  any  bearing  on  this 
transaction  ?  A.  Yes,  may  be  I  was. 

Q.  You  did  not  say  this?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  because  you  thought  it  had  not  any 
bearing  on  the  case  ?  A.  I  am  not  sure;  I  could 
not  tell ;  I  did  not  think  of  it  at  the  time. 

Q.  Did  you  state  on  that  examination  that 
you  saw  Mrs.  Hyde  and  Mr.  Watson  talking 
together  just  before  this  occurrence,  as  you 


58 


state  now  ?  A.  I  could  not  say  whether  I  did 
or  not. 

Q.  If  you  did  not,  why  did  not  you  state  that 
there  ?  A.  I  was  kind  ol  nervous  then.  I  did 
not  know  hardly  what  I  was  saying.  I  was 
frightened,  and  didn’t  remember  all  I  ought  to 
have  said. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  leave  England?  A.  I 
have  been  here  a  little  over  eight  years. 

Q.  Where  did  your  grandfather  live  ?  A.  In 
Boston. 

Q.  What  part  of  England?  A.  I  am  sure  I 
cannot  tell,  a  good  ways  from  where  I  live.  I 
lived  at  Nottingham  before  he  went  to  Boston. 

Q.  How  long  before  you  came  here?  A.  Six 
months. 

Q.  Did  he  have  a  family?  A.  Yes,  but  they 
did  not  live  with  him.  They  were  all  married 
but  one.  His  wife  had  died  two  years  before  I 
came  out.  , 

Q.  Whom  was  he  living  with  ?  A.  I  don  t 
know,  he  was  boarding  at  Nottingham. 

Were  you  and  he  boarding  at  the  same  place  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  live  with  him?  A.  Up  to 
the  time  I  was  married. 

Q.  When  was  that?  A.  I  have  been  married 
over  fifteen  years. 

Q,  Then  you  lived  with  him  down  to  the  time 
you  was  married  fifteen  years  ago?  A.  He 
kept  house  a  long  while  after  that.  He  lived 
close  to  us. 

Q.  He  lived  by  himself  a  long  while  after  that 
and  kept  house;  were  some  of  his  family  with 
him  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where  did  he  live  at  the  time  he  took  this 
laudanum  ?  A.  Nottingham. 

Q.  Did  you  live  with  him  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  How"  long  ago  was  that?  A.  Just  before  I 
was  married. 

Q.  How  long  before  you  was  married  did  he 
take  this  laudanum?  A.  I  cannot  exactly  state, 
a  little  before  I  was  married. 

Q.  Do  you  look  upon  laudanum  as  a  sure 
poison?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  quantity  he  took  ?  A. 
Four  penorth,  (penny-worth). 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  take  it?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  of  your  own  personal  knowl¬ 
edge  know'  he  took  it?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  it  ?  A.  Because  he  was 
found  by  two  policemen. 

Q.  How  did  you  know  that  this  particular  ar¬ 
ticle  caused  him  to  be  in  that  condition  ?  A. 


Because  my  mother  sent  to  a  drug  store. 

Q.  You  don’t  know  yourself?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  All  you  know  about  it  is  what  your 
mother  to'ld  you?  A.  Yes,  I  saw  him  next 
morning. 

Q.  You  have  no  knowledge  of  what  he  took 
excepting  hearsay  ?  A.  That’s  all. 

Q.  All  you  know'  is  that  he  was  found  in  some 
condition  unusual,  by  policemen,  and  it  was 
told  you  that  he  had  been  taking  laudanum  ?  A. 

Q.  How  about  this  knife  under  his  head  ; 
when  did  he  sleep  with  this  knife  under  his 
head  ?  A.  After  I  was  married. 

Q.  Were  you  there  at  the  time,  so  that  you 


yourself  know'  anything  about  its  being 
his  head?  A.  I  was  not  in  the  house. 

Q.  All  you  know  about  that  is  that  yoi 
some  one  speak  of  it?  A.  Yes,  I  hea 
mother  say. 

Q.  Then  the  next  thing  is  about  this 
you  say  he  took  this  rope  up  stairs  to  has 
self,  how  do  you  know  that  ?  A.  I  was 
Q.  How  do  you  know  ?  A.  We  seen  1 
Q.  Did  you  see  him  hang?  A.  No, 
fetched  in  the  neighbors.  He  took  it 
hook  in  the  kitchen  and  took  it  up  stairs 
Q.  What  next  ?  A.  We  sent  for  the 
bors. 


Q.  What  next,  what  did  he  do  ?  A 
know ;  I  didn't  follow  him, 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  there,  up  stairs,  w 
rope  ?  A."  No,  sir.  I  was  too  scared  to 
Q.  How  do  you  know  he  took  it  up 
saw'  him. 

Q.  How  far  ?  A.  A  long  flight  of  stai 
Q.  You  don’t  know  of  your  own  kn< 
anything  he  did  with  the  rope?  No,  sir 
Q.  These  are  the  things  from  which  y 
dertake  to  say  he  was  not  in  his  right  mi. 
Yes;  a  great  many  people  said  so. 

Q.  Was  he  confined  at  home  after  tl 
affair,  or  after  this  laudanum  affair,  or  i 
was  found  with  a  knife  under  his  pillov 
sir :  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  He  was  put  under  no  restriction?  . 


sir. 

Q,  That  was  six  or  eight  years  before  t 
A.  Yes,  some  of  it. 

Q.  Where  was  it  that  you  understo; 
grandfather  was  found  on  this  occasic 
taken  up  by  the  policeman  ?  A.  A  lit' 
from  home. 

Q.  How'  far  from  home?  A.  The  ^ 
place. 

Q.  A  public  place  ?  A.  Yes.  J 

Q.  In  what  condition  was  he  fom? 
Leaning  up  against  a  wall.  _  j 

Q.  Do  you  think  every  man  w'ho  is  fo  # 
ing  up  against  a  wall  has  taken  laudan  l' 
I  don't  know'. 

By  a  JUROK.— This  grandfather— vl 
the  father’s  side,  or  on  the  mothers! 
the  prisoner  ?  A.  On  F anny  s  father  s  1 
Q.  What  was  his  name  ?  A.  Windl 
Q.  Mr.  BRITTON  — When  he  w<; 
from  his  home  to  live  by  himself  to  B>,* 
he  go  alone  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  After  that  so  far  as  you  know  el 
alone?  A.  Yes.  vll 

Q.  He  lived  there  alone  after  he  leM 
don't  know.  He  went  there  just  befo  B 
to  this  country.  December,  eight  yearflN 
Q.  When  do  you  understand  he  on 
Eight  years  ago  next  J uly. 

Q.  Do  you  understand  he  died  in 
after  he  went  to  Boston?  A.  No,  I  d| 
that  I  did. 

Q.  How-  long  do  you  understand; 
there.  A.  I  don't  know,  I  am  sine. 


Re-direct. 


Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  any  occasi*  < 


59 


watching  him  to  see  that  he  did  not  injure 
self  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Who  ?  A.  My  brother-in-law. 

:  Was  it  not  well  understood  in  the  family 
many  years  that  he  was  not  in  his  right 
I? 

[jected  to. 

le  COUET. — The  form  is  objectionable. 
Re-cross. 

£  What  was  the  understanding  in  the  family 
the  condition  of  his  mind?  A.  They 
c  stood  he  was  not  right. 

Q  Do  you  know  of  your  own’  knowledge 
il  mur  brother-in-law  watched  him  ?  A.  I 
it. 

Re-direct. 

QWere  these  matters  talked  over  by  all  the 
n:  ?  A.  Yes. 


John  Marr — Re-called. 

Q.  ^ou  were  acquainted  with  Mr.  Windley’s 
hi?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q, hr  how  many  years?  A.  Thirty  years, 
(juror  the  last  fifteen  or  twenty  years  of  his 
o  \  at  was  the  understanding,  if  you  know, 
oi  his  family  and  those  acquainted  with 
ai  to  the  condition  of  his  mind  ? 

)§  cted  to. 

Cl  COUET — Is  this  witness  a  member  of 
f  lily  ?  A.  I  was  br  rnght  up  next  house 
hi  his  father  and  mother  lived  next  house 
m;  ather  and  mother.  We  were  all  brought 
tc  ther. 

■?.  rom  what  you  have  seen  and  know  of 
n  lat  impression  was  made  on  your  mind 
io  lether  he  was  in  his  right  mind  or  not  ? 
<b  ted  to. 

I  ite  facts  within  your  knowledge  ?  A.  I 
e  in  Fanny  Hyde’s  grandfather  in  my 
se:  3  with  his  younger  brother  tending 
hii  because  he  was  said  to  be  out  of  his 
id  that  time.  He  has  wanted  to  borrow 
ae;  rom  his  brother,  and  his  brother  would 
li  l  him  any.  He  offered  before  the  corn- 


people,  if  anybody  would  loan  him  a 
he  would  bite  an  inch  out  of  the  chair 


pei] 

k.  think  that  is  sufficient  to  show  to  you. 
:■  u  lived  in  the  neighborhood  a  long 
ie?j  A  Yes. 

!•  u  heard  a  great  deal  said  about  him? 

Yef 

1-  1  lat  were  your  impressions  as  to  whether 
va!  i  his  right  mind  ?  A.  My  impression 
hat  3  was  not  in  his  right  mind. 


Cross-examined. 

1 1  you  ever  know  him  to  drink  any 
ing 
tors 


piors  ?  A.  I  never  saw  him  drink  any 


•  I  at  was  his  reputation  in  that  respect  ? 
Yo(  iat  he  was  a  drinking  man.  He  drank 
f  lit  i ;  he  was  a  temperate  man. 

!•  I  you  know  whether  or  not  at  the  time 
si  k  of,  he  was  under  the  influence  of 
'or  i  A.  I  know  he  was  not. 


Q.  How  old  was  he  at  that  time  ?  A.  I  guess 
he  would  be  about  thirty. 

Q.  Then?  A.  Yes,  or  a  little  more. 

Q.  Then  it  was  when  he  was  thirty  years  of 
age  ?  A.  It  was  fifteen  years  ago  just  about  the 
time  I  am  speaking  of. 

Q.  Did  he  have  grown  up  children  married 
and  off  at  that  time?  A.  He  had  not  grown 
up  children  married  at  that  time,  fifteen  years 
ago.  He  had  children. 

Re-direct. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Mr.  Windley? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  about  what  his  age  was 
when  he  died?  A.  That  I  could  not  say.  It 
was  about  fifteen  years  ago  when  I  knew  of 
those  transactions.  I  have  been  here  some 
eleven  years. 

Q.  You  lived  near  him  a  long  time?  A. 
Thirty  years.  I  was  brought  right  up  by  him. 

Q.  Was  not  he  older  than  what  you  have 
stated  ?  A.  He  may  have  been.  He  was  older 
than  myself  considerably. 

Re-cross. 

Q.  How  old  were  you  then?  A.  At  that 
time  I  should  be  thirty  years  of  age. 

Q.  Why  did  you  say  he  was  about  thirty,  if 
you  say  he  was  considerably  older  than  your¬ 
self?  A.  I  did  not  form  any  particular  idea 
about  his  age.  I  could  not  answer  about  his 
age  exactly. 

Q.  What  do  you  state  now  as  your  best  im¬ 
pression  that  his  age  was  when  he  offered  to 
bite  this  chair?  A.  I  suppose  his  age  would 
be  probably  forty. 

Q.  You  now  say  he  was  probably  forty  ?  A. 
I  say  “probably,”  because  I  could  not  fix  the 
age. 

Q.  Do  you  swear  that  he  was  over  thirty  at 
that  time  ?  A.  I  don’t  swear  about  his  age  at 
aff. 


Kale  Hansliaw — Sworn. 

Mr.  MOEEIS. — I  call  this  witness  out  of  the 
order  of  proof  as  she  was  not  here  yesterday. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live?  A.  No.  246  Bridge 
street. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Fanny  Hyde? 
A.  I  was  acquainted  with  her  from  the  fact 
of  her  being  a  scholar  in  the  Sabbath  school. 

Q.  What  Sabbath  school  ?  A.  The  Primitive 
Methodist  in  Bridge  street. 

Q.  Were  you  a  teacher  of  that  school?  A.  I 
was. 

Q.  When  did  she  come  to  your  school  ?  A.  I 
could  not  positively  state  ;  I  think  somewhere 
about  1868  or  1867. 

Q.  How  long  did  she  attend  school  there? 
A.  From  one  to  two  years,  I  presume. 

Q.  Was  she  a  scholar  in  your  class  during  a 
portion  of  the  time  ?  A.  She  was. 

Q.  During  what  portion  of  the  time  ?  How 
long  was  she  under  your  charge?  A.  About 
two  months;  she  had  been  in  that  class  pre- 


60 


vious.  I  bad  only  been  appointed  over  that 
class  some  two  months  before  she  left  the 
school. 

Q.  Speak  now  of  her  conduct  prior  to  yonr 
being  teacher,  and  at  the  time.  What  was  it? 
A.  Well,  it  was  good.  I  never  saw  anything  in 
her  demeanor  in  school  to  indicate  there  was 
anything  bad  in  the  girl.  She  was  quiet, 
orderly,  and  well  behaved. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Mr.  Watson  by  sight  ?  A. 
I  believe  I  saw  him  twice. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  ?  A.  I  saw  him 
in  the  church  one  Sabbath  evening  previous  to 
the  exhibition  given  by  the  school. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  attended  that 
exhibition  ?  A.  He  did.  That  was  the  second 
time  I  saw  him. 

No  cross-examination, 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess,  after  having 
cautioned  the  jurors  as  at  other  adjournments. 

The  Court  re-assembled. 


John  Dexter — Sworn. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ?  A.  Hair  net 
manufacturer. 

Q.  Is  your  place  of  business  at  the  comer  of 
Eleventh  and  South  First  Streets,  Williams- 
burgh?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Fanny  Hyde  on  the  morning 
of  the  homicide  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  About  what  time  was  it?  A.  Close  on 
eleven  o’clock.  , 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  her  ?  A.  In  the  shop. 

Q.  What  part  of  it  ?  A.  The  third  floor. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  shop?  A.  Against  the 
stove,  standing  by  the  stove. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  in  her  appearance 
that  attracted  your  attention  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  State  what  it  was?  A.  Well,  she  looked 
white  and  had  a  wild  look  in  her.  I  went  and 
mentioned  it  to  my  wife. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  ask  the  Court  to  instruct 
the  witness  to  answer  only  the  questions  asked 
him. 

Cross-exa  mined. 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  the  time  the  body 
was  lying  at  the  foot  of  the  stairs  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mrs.  Hyde  there?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  Not  at  all  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  a  remark  made  by  her  ?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  you  examined  before  the  coroner’s 
jury?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Watson  'dead  when  you  got 
there?  A.  His  pulse  was  beating,  but  there 
was  no  signs  of  life  elsewise. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  your  wife's  testimony  before 
the  coroner’s  jury  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  she  testify  on  the  subject  of  any  re¬ 
marks  made  bv1  Mrs.  Hyde  at  that  time?  A. 
Yes. 

Mr.  BRITTON.  —  I  desire  to  recall  Mrs. 


Dexter,  and  ask  her  one  further  quest!  j 
cross-examination. 

Objected  to.  Objection  overruled.  I «] 
tion. 

MARY  DEXTER  recalled  by  the  prosec  Sc 
for  cross-examination. 

Q.  You  have  stated  you  were  present  he 
the  deceased  lay  at  the  foot  of  the  stairs!  i 
Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mrs.  Hyde  there  ?  A. ' 1 1 
the  time  he  was  at  the  foot  of  the  stairs. 

Q.  Did  you  see  her  there  at  all  ?  A.  Yc 

Q.  Afterwards?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  The  same  day?  A.  Within  a  few  ini. to 

Q.  Did  you  hear  her  make  any  rema  a 
the  subject  of  the  deceased  ?  A.  Yes.  SI  in 
crying,  and  I  asked  her  what  she  was  m 
for.  She  fold  me  Mr.  Watson  had  bee  til 
ruination  of  her,  and  she  had  shot  him. 

Re-direct. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — Did  not  she  use  these  yah 
that  she  1  ‘  could  not  help  it  ?”  A.  Sha^ 
have  said  something,  but  I  could  not  heajt 

Q.  Where  was  she  when  she  made  tk  a 
mark?  A.  Just  coming  out  of  the  room,  i 

Q.  This  was  shortly  after  it  occurred  A 
Yes. 

Q.  She  was  crying?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Was  any  one  with  her?  A  No,  sir1  I 

Q.  Was  she  standing?  A.  Just  comi  ol 
of  the  shop  I  met  her. 

Re-cross. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — You  did  not  hear  he  mh| 
any  such  remark?  A.  No,  sir;  I  cou  aoj 
positively  say. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  hearing  her  sa  any 
thing  of  the  kind  ?  A.  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  Did  she  say  anything  more  than  yc  Ds 
testified  to?  A.  No,  I  don’t  remember.  >  I 

Q.  Did  she  say  anything  more  than  )(f 
had  been  the  ruination  of  her  and  she  b  sU 
him  ?  A.  I  don’t  remember  any  more.  :  ] 


Margaret  Hyde — Sworn,  t 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ?  A.  Was’igW 
city. 

Q.  Fanny's  husband  is  your  step-6cl ?  a 
Yes. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  Fan)  ?  A 
Since  November,  1871.  I  came  on  to  vitf 
sons.  They  were  married  on  the  fith  t  May 
I  was  not  aware  they  were  married  until  ig(| 

Q.  Personally,  how  long  have  you  no* 
Fanny?  A.  From  about  the  7th  of  NoM« 
a  year  ago — 1870. 

Q.  You  visited  her?  A.  I  remaincjAi 
from  Thursday,  the  7th,  until  the  next  Su™| 
week — ten  days. 

Q.  Did  you  know  the  deceased,  Mr.  hts* 
A.  I  did.  I  was  introduced  to  him  on  i 
my  son’s  house. 

Q.  You  saw  him  there  at  the  house? 
evening,  sir.  Thursday  and  Friday,  tdir® 
he  went  to  Hartford  and  returned  again 


61 


but  I  did  not  see  him  until  Tuesday  even- 
igain. 

Did  Fanny  come  to  Washington  last 
ng?  A.  The  first  of  April,  a  year  ago. 
What  was  her  object  in  visiting  Washing- 


respect  peculiar  to  married  women  ?  A.  Not  in 
the  way  of  family. 

Q.  You  merely  say  that  her  health  was  gen¬ 
erally  delicate  ?  A.  I  can  hardly  say  what  I 
would  like  to  say. 


ijected  to. 

le  COURT.  —  What  is  the  relevancy  of  the 
tion? 

r.  MORRIS. — It  relates  to  her  physical  con- 
n. 

ie  COURT. — If  that  is  the  point,  let  the 
3ss  be  questioned  upon  her  then  condition. 

1  What  was  the  condition  of  her  health  ? 
be  was  in  a  very  weak  condition.  Being 
i  g,  she  was  very  delicate  about  seeing  doctors. 

[  Did  she  visit  any  physicians  in  Washing- 
]  A.  She  did  ;  Dr.  Elliott,  President  of  the 
» cal  Board  of  Washington. 

C  Do  you  know  what  was  the  difficulty  with 
r 

e  jected  to.  Q.  I  call  for  your  own  knowl- 
£>  A.  I  don’t  know. 

C,  Do  you  know  ?  A.  I  do  know.  I  can’t 
r  ularly  word  it.  She  was  in  a  delicate 
a  tion — a  weak  state. 

Q  Do  you  mean  to  say  you  don’t  like  to  ? 
i>,  sir. 

Q  How  long  did  she  remain  there  with  you  ? 
!  e  came  on  the  first  of  April  and  left  on 
3  entieth. 

Q  Do  you  know  how  she  came  to  leave  so 
">i  A.  I  do  ;  by  a  letter  from  her  husband. 
Q  f  was  in  consequence  of  a  letter  that  she 
■e  >d  ?  A.  To  return  to  New  Britain. 

Q  How  did  that  seem  to  affect  her  ?  A. 
h<  she  received  the  letter  she  cried  bitterly, 
tsl  1  her  the  cause. 

Q.  Vhen  she  left  Washington  was  she  suffer- 
?  :  m  this  ailment?  A.  She  was. 

Q.  s  Dr.  Elliott  your  family  physician  ?  A. 

>  irjiot. 

ifhat  did  you  say  he  was  connected  with  ? 
I  is  President  of  the  Medical  Board  of 
vsl  tgton. 

hide  you  were  visiting  your  son,  did  you 
*r  !r.  Watson  speak  of  Fanny  ?  A.  I  did, 

,  t  ne. 

i-  Tat  did  he  say  ? 

It  ;ted  to  the  declarations  of  the  deceased. 
}■  here  was  Fanny  ?  A.  She  was  around 
1  r  n  about  her  work  in  the  adjoining  room 
at,  3n,  they  called  it.  He  told  me  that  he 
cd  iat  girl  ;  she  was  passing, 
fr  BRITTON. — Were  these  declarations 
de  her  presence  ?  A.  Yes. 
i-  here  she  could  hear  them  ?  A.  Yes;  it 
ulc  ie  impossible  not  to  unless  said  in  a 
isf, 

l ■  !  did  not  whisper  ?  A.  No  ;  he  spoke 
w  is  you  nowr  speak. 

*bj  ;ion  renewed  and  question  withdrawn. 
Cross-examination. 

1  len  you  used  the  expression  that  you 
th  she  was  in  a  “  delicate  condition,”  do 
m  a  in  a  technical  sense  ?  A.  I  can  hardly 
res  ayself. 

!■  -  you  refer  to  any  condition  in  any 


Re-direct. 


Q.  You  refer  to  an  ailment  usual  to  her  sex? 
A.  Yes. 


Re-cross. 


Q.  Was  anything  said  by  her  while  she  was  with 
you  indicating  that  there  was  w’rong  in  her  pre¬ 
vious  conduct?  A.  No,  sir.  She  only  made 
this  remark,  that  there  was  a  curse  hanging 
over  her.  She  says  :  “I  feel  that  there  is  a 
curse  hanging  over  me,”  and  that  is  why  Wat¬ 
son  wanted  to  take  her  to  New  Britain. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  which  indicated  to 
your  mind  that  there  had  been  anything  wrong 
in  her  conduct  previous  to  that  time  ?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  How  long  was  this  after  marriage  ?  A. 
They  were  married  in  May.  I  did  not  see  the 
girl  until  November  6th.  Then  she  visited  me 
in  April.  It  was  a  year,  nearly.  Her  husband 
went  away  on  the  15th.  On  his  return  to  New 
York  he  wrote  the  letter  for  her  to  come  imme¬ 
diately  back. 

Q.  Nearly  a  year  after  her  marriage  ?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  From  May  to  the  following  April?  A. 
Yes. 


Ellen  Curley — Sworn  for  the  Defend¬ 
ants.  (  Re-called.) 

Mr.  BRITTON. — We  called  this  witness  and 
rested.  You  must  examine  her  in  the  direct. 

The  COURT.— It  don’t  matter  materially, 
probably. 

Mr.  MORRIS.  — You  say  you  first  saw 
Fanny  at  the  first  flight  of  stairs  or  head  of 
the  stairs.  Is  not  this  your  statement  before  the 
coroner  on  that  subject  ? — 

“  When  I  got  to  where  she  was  found  she  was 
moaning,  and  she  said  to  me  ” - 

Objected  to  that.  That  is  no  cross-examina¬ 
tion.  You  have  no  right  to  ask  such  a  question. 
Secondly,  he  has  no  right  to  ask  the  question 
in  that  form.  I  do  not  understand  you  can 
cross-examine  after  a  party  has  rested. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — The  counsel  has  just  cross- 
examined  a  witness,  on  which  he  had  cross- 
examined  and  rested. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — He  has  no  right  to  ask  her 
that  question  except  in  contradiction  of  some¬ 
thing  previously  said. 

The  COURT. — Is  it  proposed  to  contradict? 

Mr.  BRITTON. — It  is  because  he  don’t  pro¬ 
pose  to  contradict ;  that  is  the  reason  why  he 
asks  the  question. 

The  COURT. — Put  the  question  to  her  as  to 
whether  she  recollects  any  expressions  of  Mrs. 
Hyde  on  that  occasion. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — State  what  she  was  doing? 
A.  She  was  kicking  the  door  and  wringing  her 
hands,  moaning. 


62 


Q.  What  did  she  say  to  you  ?  A.  She  asked 
me  to  go  into  the  shop  and  tell  the  men  to  come 
out. 

Q.  Did  not  you  knock  at  the  door  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  She  was  by  the  door  when  you  first  saw 
her  ?  A.  Yes. 

The  COURT. — Was  this  moaning  and  wring¬ 
ing  before  or  after  the  shooting  ?  A.  After. 

Q.  State  the  manner  of  her  w'ringing  her 
hands  and  moaning — was  it  loud?  Could  it 
have  been  heard  at  a  distance  ?  A.  No,  sir  ;  it 
was  not  loud. 

Q.  Have  you  now  stated  all  that  occurred 
there  ?  A.  Yes. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — Did  you  hear  any  body  call¬ 
ing  up  stairs.  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anybody  before  you  saw  her  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  first  see  her  ?  A.  At  the 
head  of  the  first  flight  of  stairs. 

Q.  When  you  went  tow'ard  the  door  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Who  went  to  the  door  first,  you  or  she  ? 
A.  She  was  standing  at  the  time  at  the  door  at 
the  head  of  the  first  flight  of  stairs,  kicking. 
Then  I  knocked  at  the  same  door. 


Mrs.  Sarah  Windley — Sworn. 

Q.  You  are  the  step-mother  of  Fanny  ?  A. 
Y’es,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  when  she  went  to  work 
for  Mr.  Watson?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  she  continue  to  live  home 
where  she  went  to  work  ?  A.  Just  about  a 
year. 

Q.  What  was  her  physical  condition  when 
she  went  to  work  for  Watson?  A.  Very  good. 

Q.  During  the  latter  part  of  the  time  when 
she  was  at  home,  did  you  notice  any  change  in 
her  health,  her  physical  condition  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Can  you  state  whether  there  was,  at 
periods,  anything  unusual  in  her  physical  condi¬ 
tion,  towards  the  latter  part  of  the  time  she  was 
home  ?  A.  There  was. 

Q.  After  she  left  home,  how  long  was  it  be¬ 
fore  you  saw  her  again  ?  A  Certainly  four  or 
five  months. 

Q.  What  was  her  physical  condition  then? 
A.  A  great  deal  thinner  to  what  she  was  when 
she  first  went  to  work  to  Mr.  Watson’s. 

Q.  Fallen  away  in  flesh  ?  A  Yes. 

Q.  Had  she  lost  her  color  ?  A.  Yes. 

Objected  to  as  leading. 

The  COURT.  • —  State  the  indications  of 
change  in  her  appearance  ? 

Q.  Did  you  notice  anything  indicating  a 
change  in  her  health — if  so  describe  it.  A.  She 
was  a  great  deal  more  delicate  looking  ;  a  great 
deal  thinner  ;  had  lost  a  great  deal  of  flesh. 

Q.  As  to  color.  A.  She  had  no  color  at  all. 

Q.  How  was  her  condition  when  she  went  to 
M  atson’s,  as  to  color.  A.  Much  like  her  sister 
1K,w. — (A  young  lady  beside  the  prisoner,  in 
court,  of  about  sixteen  years  of  age,  and  of  ru¬ 
bicund  and  healthful  appearance. ) 

Q.  This  sister  here  ?  A.  Yes. 

2fo  cross-examination. 


John  Windley — Sworn. 


: 


: 


an 

; 


Q.  You  are  the  father  of  Fanny  ?  A.  Y< 

Q.  Where  was  she  bom  ?  A.  In  Netting  m 

Q.  What  is  her  age  now  ?  A.  Eighteen  at 
September. 

Q.  How  old  was  she  when  she  came  tc 
country  ?  A.  A  little  over  ten  years  of  agi 

Q.  Did  she  come  out  with  you  or  afterwi 
A.  Afterwards. 

Q.  When  did  her  mother  die  ;  how  old 
she  ?  A.  She  was  four  years  old  whet 
mother  died. 

Q.  Who  came  to  this  country  with  her  i 
Her  stepmother,  brother,  and  sister. 

Q.  Where  did  you  live  when  you  came  t  im 
country  ?  A.  I  was  living  at  Fordhan  m.j 
went  to  keep  house  comer  of  Yariek  and  Ink. 
lin  streets,  N.  Y. 

Q.  Did  you  say  how  long  you  came  ’«([ 
she  did  ?  A.  I  left  the  6th  of  Februai 
they  left  the  25th  of  October  following. 

Q.  Where  did  she  go  to  work  after  she 
from  the  old  country  ?  A.  To  A.  P.  Bachi 
103  Franklin  street,  New  York. 

Q.  How  long  was  that  after  she  cann 
Only  a  few  days  ;  I  was  working  there 
time  myself,  on  hair  nets. 

Q.  Then  she  was  from  ten  to  eleven  y< 
age  ?  A.  Y’es. 

Q.  For  whom  did  she  work  next  ?  A.  i 
Man,  the  person  who  has  been  examined. 

Q.  Who  else  did  she  work  for?  A] 
John  Slack,  Brooklyn  ;  then  there  was 
other  places  where  she  went  to  nurse  an 
baby,  and  tend  a  little  girl  for  a  week  o| 
she  didn’t  stay  long  there  ;  then  she  w  I 
work  for  Mr.  Thompson,  22  Frankfort 
New  York. 

Q.  How  steadily  has  she  been  in  empl 
since ’she  came  to  this  country7  to  the  time 
occurrence  ?  A.  Constantly  employed 
time. 

Q.  Before  she  came  to  this  country, 
schools  had  she  attended  ?  A.  Evening  t- 
Day  School,  and  Sunday  School. 

Q.  How  long  had  she  attended  Day  an 
A.  My  position  at  Nottingham  did  no'* 
me  to  keep  the  children  regularly  at  scl) 

I  ought  to  have  done  ;  I  was  poor  in  oc 
stances  and  as  soon  as  they  were  old  erj 
had  to  send  them  to  work,  as  soon  ai 
able  to  do  it. 

Q,  How  old  was  she  when  she  commeji 
work  ?  A.  Eight  years  of  age. 

Q.  She  has  worked  steadily  from  that  a 
this  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  she  attend  school  at  New  Y'oii 
Y’es  ;  evening  school. 

Q.  Did  she  receive  any  recognition  f| 
conduct  ?  A.  She  did. 

Q.  What  ?  A.  She  received  two  dip! 
first  two  years. 

Q.  What  Sunday  Schools  has  she  at' 

A.  The  school  in  Hudson  street  and  tin 
Duane  street,  New  York,  and  when 


New  York  to  come  to  Brooklyn,  she 
the  Primitive  Methodist  School,  in  in 
street. 


63 


;  How  has  she  been  in  her  attendance  in 
i;e  street?  A.  Pretty  regularly. 

;  Was  she  in  the  habit  of  going  out,  except 
cnpany  with  yourself  and  family.  A.  No, 
n  no  case  whatever. 

;  You  were  very  strict  with  her,  were  you 
:  A.  Yes,  sir. 

j  Yre  not  you  rather  strict  with  your  chil- 
s-1  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  more  strict  than  I  would 
neon  if  their  own  mother  bad  been  alive  ; 
t3  correcting  of  my  children  has  been  done 
)■  since  their  mother  died 
J  Fanny  is  your  oldest  daughter?  A.  Yes. 
j  Do  you  recollect  the  time  she  went  to  work 
r.  Watson  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

}  Do  you  remember  how  long  she  remained 
i  after  that  ?  A.  As  near  as  I  can  recollect, 
p  ild  be  about  twelve  or  thirteen  months. 

3  How  old  was  she  when  she  went  to 
r  for  Watson  ?  A.  It  will  be  a  little  over 

j< . 

3  What  was  her  physical  condition  then  ? 

1  very  good  health  ;  seldom  had  any  sick- 
s 

).  luring  the  latter  part  of  the  time  she  re- 
a  .1  home,  did  you  notice  any  change  in 
t  irticular  ?  A.  Yes  ;  I  noticed  a  material 
e  !,  both  in  manners  and  in  health. 

|.  lad  she  lost  flesh  ?  A.  Yes  ;  I  noticed 
>e  flesh  and  her  health  declined  at  the 
le  ime. 

i.'Vhat  sort  of  complexion  had  she  ?  A.  A 
rtf  red  complexion  when  she  went  to  work 

hi. 

i.  'id  you  notice  anything  in  regard  to  per- 
a  rppearance,  otherwise,  as  to  dress,  etc. 

V 11 ;  I  noticed  she  did  not  exercise  that 
i  out  her  dress,  and  did  not  seem  to  be 
i<  as  she  had  been  previously  ;  she  seemed 
g  v  more  careless  ;  I  remarked  it  to  her 

nj. 

.  ow  long  after  she  left  home  before  you 
1 '  again  ?  A.  As  near  as  I  can  judge,  it 
il  ie  about  two  and  a  half  months. 

.  'hat  was  her  condition,  then?  A.  She 
a  ;red  from  her  former  appearance.  I  saw 
r  >reat  change  in  her. 

.  'hat  was  your  age  when  you  came  to  this 
a1  ?  A.  I  should  be  30  years  of  age  ;  I  am 

•  ow  old  were  you  when  you  left  your 
e:  house?  A.  About  17. 

.  ere  you  in  the  habit  of  seeing  him  up 
ae  ime  you  came  to  this  country.  A.  Yes, 
e  less  ;  I  lived  some  distance  from  there, 
u  1  to  see  him  frequently  for  all  that. 

•  i  aw  was  he  regarded  by  his  family  and 
f  iquainted  with  him  as  to  the  condition 
is  ind. 

r.  HUTTON. — I  object  to  that  question; 
r  -  nor  has  limited  it  to  members  of  the 
|M 

r-  f  ORRIS. — Well,  then,  members  of  the 
1}  Do  you  know  how  he  came  to  his 
h,  om  what  you  have  beard  from  members 
'e  mily.  A.  Yes. 

4  w? 

t>j;  ed  to — Objection  overruled. 

•  drowned  himself. 


Q.  Was  it  considered  by  the  family  that  he 
was  not  in  his  right  mind  ? 

Objected  to  as  to  competency,  and  as  leading. 
The  COURT. — The  form  is  objectionable. 

Q.  What  wras  the  understanding  in  that 
respect  ?  A.  That  he  was  not  entirely  in  his 
right  senses. 

Q.  Where  did  you  remove  to  when  you  first 
came  to  Brooklyn  ?  A.  Flushing  Avenue. 

Q.  Near  what  street?  A.  Between  Vander¬ 
bilt  and  Clermont.  I  moved  from  there  between 
Oxford  and  Portland. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  Watson  boarded  at 
that  time?  A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Was  it  not  in  his  house  where  you  lived  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  in  Williams- 
burgh  or  not?  A.  I  believe  it  was  in  Williams- 
burgh. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  the  primitive  Method¬ 
ist  church  was  in  Bridge  street?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  far  was  that  from  where  you  lived 
in  Vanderbilt  Avenue  ?  A.  About  fifteen  min¬ 
utes  walk. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  live  there  ?  A.  Nearly 
two  years. 

Q.  Your  daughter  resided  there  with  you  a 
part  of  the  time?  A.  Yes,  sir,  with  the  excep¬ 
tion  of  a  week  or  two.  Then  she  went  to 
nurse  a  baby  or  something  of  that  kind. 

q>.  Where  did  you  move  to  when  you  left 
Flushing  Avenue  ?  A.  Corner  of  Marcy 
Avenue  and  Rodman  Street,  Williamsburgh. 

Q.  After  you  moved  there  did  Fanny  attend 
the  Bridge  street  Methodist  Church  ?  A.  Occa¬ 
sionally,  not  regularly.  It  was  a  long  distance, 
and  if  it  rained  I  would  much  rather  she  stayed 
at  home  than  go. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  Mr.  Watson  resided 
at  that  time  when  3you  lived  there  in  Marcy 
Avenue?  A.  Yes;  I  believe  he  lived  in  Wilson 
Street  with  a  person  named  Roche. 

Q.  How. far  was  that  from  where  you  lived? 
A.  About  seven  blocks. 

Q.  After  Fanny  went  to  work  with  Mr. 
Watson  did  you  notice  any  change  in  her  dis¬ 
position?  A.  Yes;  she  did  not  seem  to  pay 
that  attention  to  my  requests  that  she  previ¬ 
ously  had  done  in  former  times.  If  I  requested 
her  to  do  anything  before,  she  would  do  it  with 
a  good  will  which  she  did  not  after  that  time. 

Q.  Can  you  state  whether  or  not  she  became 
more  fretful  ?  A.  I  cannot  state  as  to  her  fret¬ 
ting.  I  noticed  one  thing  in  particular,  she 
got  considerably  more  irritable  in  temper.  A 
very  little  thing  would  make  her  excited. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  time  she  went  to 
Washington?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  her  when  she  returned  from 
Washington  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  soon  after  ?  A.  She  came  right 
home. 

Q.  How  long  did  she  remain  there  before 
she  went  to  New  Britain?  A.  A  very  short 
time. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  long  she  remained  in 
New  Britain  ?  A.  No,  sir,  I  cannot  tell ;  a 
week  or  two. 

Q.  About  when  did  she  return  from  New 


64 


Britain  ?  A.  It  was  some  few  weeks  after  the 
last  4th  o  '  July. 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  You  say  that  Fanny  grew  paler  and 
thinner  as  she  grew  older  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  ask  her  any  cause  for  this  ? 
A.  No,  sir,  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  her  state  to  any  one 
any  cause  for  this  growing  thinner  as  you  have 
described?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Had  you  any  reason  to  know  what  the 
cause  was  for  growing  thinner  at  that  time ; 
any  special  reason.  A.  No  special  reason? 
I  had  no  reason  for  supposing  what  the  direct 
cause  was. 

Q.  Had  you  any  reason  to  suppose  at  that 
time  that  Watson  had  anything  to  do  with  it  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  after  she  left  your  house  was  it 
before  she  got  married  ?  A.  About  two  months. 

Q.  Did  you  know  her  husband  before  they 
were  married?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Not  at  all?  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  they  married?  A.  I  believe 
they  were  married  in  Myrtle  avenue. 

Q.  You  had  no  knowledge  of  it  ?  A.  No, 
sir  ;  I  had  no  knowledge  that  she  was  going  to 
be  married. 

Q.  You  never  had  seen  him  before?  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  How  soon  after  you  understood  they  were 
married  did  you  see  him  ?  A.  I  believe'it  was 
two  weeks. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  ?  A.  He  came  to 
my  house  one  Sunday. 

Q.  W  hen  did  you  learn  they  were  married  ? 
A.  About  two  days  afterward. 

Q.  From  either  of  them  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Which  one  ?  A.  From  Fanny. 

Q.  Did  she  give  you  any  reason  why  she  mar¬ 
ried  him  without  your  knowledge  ?  A.  She  did 
not. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  her?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  take  much  interest  in  it?  A. 
I  took  a  great  deal  of  interest  in  it. 

Q.  You  did  not  ask  her  why?  Why  did  not 
you  ask  her  why  she  got  married  without  your 
knowledge  and  consent  ?  A.  I  did  not  wish  to 
at  the  time,  because  it  was  in  the  shop  at  work. 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  at  home  ?  A.  Because 
her  husband  was  with  her. 

Q.  \  ou  did  see  her  when  her  husband  was 
not  with  her  ?  A.  Not  until  some  time  after. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  ask  her  why  she  got  married 
without  vour  knowledge  and  consent?  A.  Never. 

Q.  You  did  see  her  alone?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  ask  her  ?  A.  No. 

Q.  Do  you  know  why  ?  A.  No,  I  don’t. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  anybody  ?  A.  No. 

Q.  Was  there  any  cause  as  a  father  why  you 
should  not  make  inquiry  on  that  subject*?  '  A. 
Because  I  thought  if  she  had  married  and  made 
her  bed  she  had  better  lie  in  it 

Q.  You  thought  if  she  had  made  a  bed  she 
had  better  he  in  it  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  is  all  the  interest  you  had  in  it  ?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  Why  did  she  leave  your  house  at  the  time 
she  stated  ?  A.  Well,  she  got  very  careless  in 


her  dress  for  some  reason.  I  began  to  qu  ic 
her  on  the  subject,  and  spoke  to  her  very  o 
about  it 

Q.  She  left  because  you  and  she  did  not! « 
A.  Not  entirely. 

Q.  What  other  cause  ?  A.  There  was  a  :  o 
circulated  around,  and  it  came  to  my  ears,  \ 
intimacy  existing  between  her  and  Mr.  W  « 
I  broached  the  subject  to  her  ;  but  at  th  ii 
I  set  it  down  as  a  piece  of  malicious  t 
circulated  around  by  a  man  I  was  at  va  n 
with  at  the  time.  I  did  not  pay  any  regl 
to  it ;  I  took  it  to  be  a  malicious  report  bjj 
but  for  all  that  I  mentioned  the  subj 
Fanny.  I  brought  it  around  in  a  gentl  j 
of  way  as  I  could,  without  being  positive 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  her?  A.  Yl 
don’t  know  the  exact  words  I  made  use  o: 
she  got  very  excited. 

Q.  You  in  substance  asked  her  if  it  w  m 
if  there  was  any  intimacy  between  her  am » 
son  ?  A.  I  gave  her  to  understand  that  1 1 
this  report. 

Q.  What  answer  did  she  make?  A.  S 
very  excited  and  told  me  she  was  old  eno 
take  care  of  herself.  That  was  abou  t 
months  before  she  got  married. 

Q.  That  is  all  the  conversation  you  ev 
with  her  on  the  subject  ?  A.  Yes. 

Re-direct. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  witlra 
son  on  the  subject  of  that  report  ?  A.  I  >  L 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ? 

Objected  to,  as  Watson’s  mouth  is  clod, 
death. 

The  COURT. — Statements  made  in  pie« 
of  the  accused? 

Q.  She  was  not  present  when  yon  sp<i  I 
the  subject.  A.  No,  sir. 


Fanny  Hyde,  the  Defendant — S  w 


Q.  When  was  it  you  went  to  work  foil 
son  ?  A.  The  latter  part  of  February, i 

years  ago. 

Q.  How  old  were  you  then?  A.  Jus* 
ing  fifteen. 

Q.  You  were  a  virtuou  s  girl  at  that  tim 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  had  any  improper  inM 
except  with  Mr.  Watson?  A.  No,  sir;  1* 
not. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  worked  for  him  i 
there  was  any  improper  intimacy  ?  A.  ?il 
as  I  can  recollect,  it  was  between  five  fil 
months. 

Q.  And  where  did  that  occur?  A.  id 


shop. 

Q.  What  time  of  day  was  it  ?  A.  It 
the  morning. 

Q.  State  how  you  came  to  go  there  thatMl 
ing  ?  A.  I  had  some  nets  I  got  the 
before,  and  he  told  me  I  should  come 
o’clock  for  the  elastics. 

Q.  Was  he  in  the  habit  of  calling 
house  to  6ee  you  ?  A.  To  my  father’s  m 


:hat  ion 
aft  no 

lie  :  no 

,g 


65 


(  At  your  house  where  you  were  living? 
'es,  sir. 

(  During  the  time  of  his  intimacy  with  you 
c  you  had  occasion  to  take  medicine.  A. 
j  sir. 

(  Who  furnished  those?  A.  Mr.  Watson. 
(  Did  he  ever  suggest  to  you  to  go  over  to 
i  York  to  live  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

(  Did  he  state  where  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

(  Where  did  you  understand  he  wanted  you 
1  ? 

h  BEITTON  thought  it  was  an  improper 
ic  ion. 

1’.  MOEEIS. — From  his  manner,  did  you 
jose  any  place? 

le  COURT. — It  is  no  supposition, 
be  did  he  want  her  to  go  ?  A.  He  didn’t 
y  xactly.  He  said  nothing  more  than  he 
ued  me  to  go  to  New  York  and  stop  there. 
(  What  did  you  understand  by  that  ? 

(jected  to. 

1e  COURT. — Lay  the  foundation  by  some 
tt  statement,  to  show  that  she  was  justified 
i'erring  what  he  meant. 

5.  MORRIS. — Did  he  ever  want  you  to  go 
<7  physician  or  any  place?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

C  And  was  that  suggestion  made  because  it 
supposed  you  were  in  difficulty  ?  A.  Yes, 

C  Did  you  go  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

C  You  refused  ?  A.  I  refused. 

C  You  recoRect  the  time  you  went  to  Wash- 
gu?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

(,  What  did  you  go  there  for  ?  A.  Medical 
te  lance. 

C,  You  were  suffering  at  that  time  ?  A.  Yes, 

QAnd  have  you,  since  the  intimacy  com- 
3i  id,  suffered  in  consequence  of  difficulties  ? 
:s,  sir. 

Q  Much  or  little  ?  A  Much. 

Q  You  were  suffering  from  that  cause  on  the 
y  "  this  occurrence  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q  Where  did  you  make  the  acquaintance  of 
u  msband  ?  A.  At  the  homestead. 

Q  Where  you  boarded  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q  Did  Mr.  Watson  say  anything  to  you  on 
i  ibject  of  your  getting  married.  A.  Yes, 

Q  Was  anything  said  by  him  as  to  whether 
y  got  married  he  would  cease  his  visits  ? 
is,  sir. 

3  state  what  he  said  at  the  time  ?  A.  He 
d  I  got  married  he  would  let  me  alone.  I 
;e  him  if  I  got  married  if  he  would  let  me 
n  and  he  promised  faithfully  he  would. 

3  State  the  manner  in  which  he  made  the 
«  se  ?  A.  I  made  him  take  an  oath  on  the 
il 

3  )uring  this  time  had  you  any  confidant 
ix  friend  ;  any  lady  friend  that  you  made  a 
if  tnt  of  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

3' four  mother  was  very  strict  with  you, 

8  e  not?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

3-  end  your  father  also  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

3-  )id  Mr.  Watson  ever  threaten  to  expose 
A  you  did  not  comply  with  his  wishes  ? 
^  ,  sir  ;  repeatedly. 

3-  fid  not  you  frequently  entreat  him  to 
V(  ou  alone  and  not  pursue  you  ? 


Mr.  BRITTON. — I  object  to  this  form — the 
council  and  Court  will  understand  the  delicacy 
of  the  position  I  occupy,  and  I  rely  on  the 
honor  of  counsel  not  to  take  advantage  of  it. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — I  don’t  desire  to  put  an  im¬ 
proper  question. 

Q.  When  you  returned  from  Washington  you 
went  to  New  Britain  ?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  two  weeks 
after  I  left. 

Q.  Your  husband  was  up  there  at  the  time  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Watson  ever  take  you  to  his 
house  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  far  did  he  five  from  New  Britain  ? 
A.  Nine  miles. 

Q.  You  were  there  part  of  the  time  when 
your  husband  was  absent  at  the  house  ?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  did  you  sleep  with  when  your  hus¬ 
band  was  away?  A.  The  first  night  I  slept 
with  his  little  daughter,  and  the  other  nights 
with  his  elder  daughter. 

Q  About  your  age  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  you  there  on  Sunday  night?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  by  him  to  the  family 
about  going  to  church  ?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  he 
wanted  to  get  his  wife  to  go  ;  his  daughter  had 
gone  and  his  eldest  son  was  out. 

Q.  And  what  did  he  say  about  himself — what 
he  would  do  ?  A.  He  said  he  and  I  could  take 
care  of  the  young  children  and  put  them  to  bed 
when  it  was  time. 

Q.  While  you  were  at  New  Britain,  did  you 
accuse  Mr.  Watson,  in  the  presence  of  your 
husband,  of  having  seduced  you  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  what  you  said  to  him  and  what  he 
said  ?  A.  I  could  not  recoRect  exactly  what  I 
said  ;  I  told  my  husband  about  it  ;  he  was  very 
angry  and  said  he  was  going  to  put  him  through 
the  law  for  it,  and  Watson  begged,  for  the  sake 
of  his  wife  and  children,  not  to  do  it. 

Q.  Did  he  make  any  promise  then  about 
leaving  you  alone  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  and  your  husband  left  New  Britain 
at  that  time  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  long  after  you  got  back  to  Brooklyn 
was  it  before  Mr.  W atson  came  ?  A.  I  don’t 
recoRect  exactly — may  be  three  or  four  months 
— perhaps  two. 

Q.  Did  he  call  to  see  you  after  that  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir  ;  he  called  to  see  me  before  he  came  from 
New  Britain. 

Q.  After  you  returned  from  New  Britain,  did 
he  renew  his  intimacy  with  you  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  Williamsburgh  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Under  what  circumstances  ?  A.  He 
threatened  to  expose  me,  and  threatened  to  teR 
my  father,  and  tell  everybody. 

Q.  Was  the  subject  of  your  relations  with 
him  a  matter  of  much  thought  and  reflection 
on  your  part  ?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  was  always  think¬ 
ing  about  it. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  you  were  in  the 
habit  of  frequently  weeping  upon  that  subject  ? 

The  COURT. — Did  I  hear  an  objection  ? 

Q.  What  effect  did  it  have  on  your  mind  ? 
A.  I  was  always  thinking  about  it,  and  I  cried 
about  it  continuaEy. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — Were  you  or  were  you  not, 


66 


during  this  time,  anxious  to  have  him  cease  his 
visits  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Cross-examination. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  the  factory  once  or  twice, 
while  you  were  there,  after  you  commenced  to 
work  there  ?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  left  working  in  the 
shop. 

Q.  Mr.  Bachman  was  proprietor  of  the  place 
by  name '?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  was  carried  on  in 
Bachman’s  name. 

Q.  Didn’t  Mr.  Bachman,  at  one  time,  in  the 
absence  of  Mr.  Watson,  discharge  you  from  the 
factor}’  ?  A.  I  left  the  shop  ;  I  worked  home. 

Q.  Didn’t  he  discharge  you  from  work  in  the 
shop  ?  A.  He  told  me  that  I  could  work  home. 

Q.  Wasn’t  that  at  the  time  Mr.  Watson  was 
absent?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  Mr.  Watson  remain  absent  some 
two  or  three  weeks  on  that  occasion  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Is  it  a  fact  that  you  had  work  from  that 
shop  during  these  two  or  three  weeks  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Did  you  work  in  the  factory  during  that 
period?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  did  you  get  the  work  from  ?  A.  I 
believe  it  was  from  Mr.  Watson’s  father-in-law, 
Mr.  Pixley. 

Q.  After  Mr.  Bachman  had  stated  that  he 
did  not  wish  you  to  work  in  the  shop,  you  got 
work  from  Pixley  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Continued  to  work  right  along  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir  ;  worked  home. 

Q.  Isn’t  it  a  fact  that  you  did  not  get  any 
more  work  until  Mr.  Watson  came  back  ?  A. 
No,  sir  ;  it  is  not. 

Q.  When  was  this  to  which  you  refer  in  these 
answers  ?  A.  It  was  before  I  was  married  and 
afterwards  too. 

Q.  I  refer  to  the  particular  period  when  Mr. 
Watson  was  gone  two  or  three  weeks — in  July, 
1871  ?  A.  No,  sir  ;  it  was  the  time  I  left  home. 

Q.  Whenever  it  was — whatever  the  particular 
date,  wasn’t  there  a  time  when  Mr.  Bachman 
discharged  you — that  is, [asked  you  to  quit  work¬ 
ing  ;  that  you  didn’t  work  there  any  more  until 
Watson  came  back  two  or  three  weeks  after¬ 
wards  ?  A.  I  had  not  been  to  work  in  the  shop 
until  two  or  three  weeks  before  this  happened, 
since  I  left  New  Britain. 

Q.  The  question  is,  whether  there  was  a  time, 
after  you  left  the  factory,  that  you  didn’t  take 
any  work  irom  the  factory  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  was  the  time  to  which  you  refer 
yon  left  the  factory  and  didn’t  come  back  till 
recently  ?  A.  I  left  when  I  came  from  New 
Britain  ? 

Q.  Was  that  the  time  you  refer  to  when  Wat¬ 
son  was  absent  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  The  time  I  ask  you  was  when  you  left  at 
Bachman’s  suggestion,  Watson  being  absent? 
A.  It  was  in  March. 

Q.  Before  or  after  you  went  to  New  Britian. 
A.  Before  ;  before  I  was  married. 

Q.  On  that  occasion  isn’t  it  true  that  you 
didn’t  get  any  work  from  the  factory  for  two  or 
three  weeks. '  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  back  to  the  factory  again  ?  A. 
No,  sir. 


*  i 

Q.  The  next  place  you  worked  for  Mr.  4 
son  was  at  New  Britain?  A.  At  the  facia 
yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  went  to  New  Britain  first ;  y<  jq 
Watson?  A.  Mr.  Watson. 

Q.  Who  went  first,  you  or  your  hushi  U 
A.  My  husband. 

Q.  How  long  after  Mr.  Watson  went  | 
was  it  that  you  went?  A.  Mr.  Watson  we1 
March,  I  believe,  and  my  husband  went  t 
the  middle  of  April,  and  I  went  the  latter 
of  April  or  the  first  part  of  May. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  ?  A.  To 

Q.  With  whom  did  you  live?  A.  I  bo: j 
with  Mr.  Woodhouse. 

Q.  All  the  time  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Watson  at  any  time  board  there  ) 
He  did. 

Q.  Who  commenced  first  to  board  at  l 
Woodh ouse’s,  you  or  Mr.  Watson?  A.  I  c. 

Q.  Do  you  know  at  whose  solicitatio. 
anybody’s,  Mr.  Watson  went  to  Woodhor 
A.  His  own  ;  I  suppose. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  on  that  subi 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Don’t  you  know  it  to  be  a  fact  that  I 
husband  asked  Mr.  Woodhouse  to  have  i 
son  come  there  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  before  you  went  ( 
that  Watson  came  there?  A.  Two  or  s 
weeks,  or  a  week. 

Q.  While  you  were  at  Mr.  Woodha 
place,  did  you  all  the  time  occupy  the  i 
room  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  was  that  room  located  in: 
house  ?  A.  The  back  ;  it  was  a  two-i 
house,  and  you  had  to  go  up  stairs  to  the  11 

Q.  How  many  rooms  were  there  then 
Three. 

Q.  On  that  floor?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Who  occupied  the  other  two  ?  A.  J 
Watson  occupied  one,  and  another  gentli 
and  Mr.  Wooilhouse’s  son  the  other. 

Q.  Did  the  other  gentleman  and  Mr.  7< 
house’s  son  occupy  it  all  the  time  ?  A.  Ye! 

Q.  Sure  about  that  ?  A.  I  won’t  be  certn 

Q.  What  was  the  other  gentleman’s  ni 
A.  Stephen  Boberts. 

Q.  Was  he  a  single  or  a  married  man  k 
A  single  man,  for  anything  that  I  kuo"  b 
passed  for  one. 

Q.  Was  he  there  all  the  time  you  were  A 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  said  that  you  stated  to  Mr/4 
son,  or  stated  in  the  presence  of  your  bus  nd 
that  Watson  had  improper  associations  id 
you  ;  on  that  occasion  was  there  any  talk  i* 
having  a  couple  of  men  come  from  New® 
and  work  up  there  ?  A.  Not  that  I  know  . 

Q.  Didn’t  you  ask  Mr.  Watson  to  brim  p1 
couple  of  men  from  New  York  to  have  M 
work  up  there  in  the  factory  ?  A.  No,  sill 

Q.  Isn’t  this  the  language  you  used,  o 
you  made  these,  what  you  have  deekA 
“accusations,”  “you  have  nothing  to  say *> 
it,  for  you  have  had  me?"  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  it  ?  A.  I  told  my  husband 
he  followed  me  up  and  down. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  anyone  else  of  thi  n 
maey  between  you  and  Watson  ?  A.  No.  •• 


67 


\  You  had  companions,  didn’t  you  ;  young 
friends  before  you  were  married  ?  A.  No 
■than  the  girls  in  the  shop  and  girls  in  the 
.  y  School ;  I  never  had  a  constant  com- 
ji. 

.You  had  charge  of  the  establishment — 
M  of  the  girls  there  before  Mr.  Watson’s 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

What  was  your  compensation?  A.  Ten 
h  a  week. 

;  What  pay  did  the  other  girls  receive  ?  A. 

1 1  know  certain  ;  Fanny  Kelly  received  $7. 
Did  you  have  any  words  with  Mr.  Wat- 
1  the  day  of  his  death,  in  the  forenoon, 

!  neighborhood  of  eleven  o’clock,  in  the 
A.  I  had  words  with  him  in  the  mom- 

,  Did  he  make  any  accusation  against  you 
:  t  occasion  ?  A.  He  was  always  accusing 
c  going  with  other  men. 

.Did  he  then?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

.Did  he  likewise  accuse  you  of  being  with 
:( me  when  you  were  down  stairs  that  fore- 
i  A.  Yes,  sir. 

,  Did  you  have  any  words  with  him  beyond 
i,  n  that  occasion  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

.  What  time  of  day  was  that  and  where  ? 
I  was  in  the  morning  ;  I  could  not  state 
V  what  time  ;  it  was  in  the  shop. 

.  _t  was  after  you  had  been  down  stairs  and 
i  Sack  again  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

.  Ynd  in  the  shop  the  noise  of  the  machi- 
>  fould  naturally  prevent  the  language  being 
r by  others,  if  you  talked?  A.  Yes,  unless 
Iked  very  loud  and  was  very  close  to  him. 

,  What  was  the  last  occasion  before  Wat- 
rieath  that  you  were  intimate  with  him? 
5  nday  night, 

,  What  day  was  he  killed  ?  A.  Friday. 

,  tou  don’t  mean  to  say  you  did  not  have 
l  rnrse  with  your  husband  ?  A.  Of  course 
m. 

•  Did  you  have  any  intercourse  while  in 
Britain?  A.  No,  sir. 

.  Did  you  have  improper  intimacy  with 
)i;s  while  you  were  in  New  Britain?  A. 
I  did  not. 

.  )id  you  go  to  his  room  while  you  were 
i  in  the  night,  from  your  own?  A.  No, 

Be-dired. 

t  MORRIS. — Your  husband  was  there  all 
tile?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

•  ’ou  slept  with  him  every  night  ?  A.  Yes. 

.  Yhen  you  wrent  into  the  room  up  stairs  in 

illiamsburgh  factory  and  spoke  to  your 
1 at  the  time  Mrs.  Gleason  speaks  about, 
t  id  you  say  ? 

BRITTON. — Wait  a  moment.  The  coun- 
austed  the  direct  examination.  We  have 
*Vj  very  few  questions  in  the  cross-examina- 
■  Now  he  returns  to  the  direct  examina- 

•  He  should  have  exhausted  her  before  he 
e  He  ought  not  to  be  permitted  to  find 

3  extent  of  the  cross-examination  and 
i  Jturn  to  the  direct.  That  is  hardly  al- 
i  f  under  the  circumstances. 

]  MORRIS. — It  would  be  remarkable  to 


have  so  technical  a  ruling.  It  is  in  the  power 
and  discretion  of  the  court. 

The  COURT. — It  is  usual  to  allow  counsel  to 
resume  the  direct  or  cross  within  reasonable 
bounds.  In  a  case  like  this  we  will  not  restrict 
either  side  in  the  exercise  of  that  privilege — or 
right,  if  it  be  a  right. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — The  purpose  in  this  case 
was  to  examine  in  chief  briefly  to  see  how  far  I 
would  pursue  the  cross-examination,  and  then 
return  to  the  chief. 

The  COURT. — I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  rule 
against  Judge  Morris  within  reasonable  limits. 
You  have  a  right  to  return  to  the  cross-examin¬ 
ation. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  your  mother  when 
you  went  in  the  room  up  stairs  ?  A.  I  asked 
her  if  I  could  go  into  the  private  room. 

Q.  Were  the  plumbers  at  work  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  was  your  object  in  purchasing  the 
pistol  ?  A.  I  bought  it  to  give  to  my  husband 
as  a  New  Year’s  present. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  object  to  the  counsel  ask¬ 
ing  a  few  questions  and  then  resting  on  his  ex¬ 
amination  in  chief.  I  will  not  say  it  was  in¬ 
tended  to  see  how  far  I  would  bring  out  these 
other  facts  on  this  cross-examination  so  as  to 
bind  me  thereby,  but  it  is  fair  to  presume  when 
he  returns  to  these  material  questions  afterwards, 
that  the  purpose  was  to  lay  that  kind  of  a  trap. 
I  cannot  designate  it  in  any  other  way. 

The  COURT. — You  have  not  fallen  into  it, 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  know  I  have  not.  Hav¬ 
ing  failed  in  that,  he  proposes  to  return  to  the 
charge.  He  should  be  held  to  the  attempt  he 
has  made.  It  is  not  just  under  the  circumstan¬ 
ces  of  the  case  to  permit  the  counsel  to  ask 
these  questions  in  chief.  He  rests  and  then 
goes  back  to  more  important  issues  of  the  case, 
so  far  as  this  particular  testimony  is  concerned. 

Mr.  MORRIS.— This  is  a  most  remarkable 
exhibition.  I  venture  to  say  it  has  never  been 
excelled. 

The  COURT. — The  counsel  had  not  deter¬ 
mined  how  far  to  go  on  her  testimony  on  the 
main  issue.  The  Court  do  not  feel  inclined  to 
limit  the  license  of  counsel.  They  have  a  duty 
to  perform  to  their  client.  The  Court  do  rot 
feel  at  liberty  to  restrict  them  on  this  ques'i^mi 
— at  this  time  at  all  events. 

Q.  You  say  you  purchased  this  pistol  to  make 
a  present  of  it  to  your  husband.  Had  your 
husband  spoken  on  the  subject  of  having  a  pis¬ 
tol,  and  do  you  know  what  induced  him  to  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir  ;  there  had  been  two  or  three  per¬ 
sons  robbed,  and  my  husband  said  he  would 
like  to  have  one  in  the  house  in  case  they  should 
break  into  our  house. 

Q.  How  near  New  Year’s  was  it  ?  A.  A  week 
after  New  Year’s. 

Q.  Why  was  it  not  purchased  before  New 
Year’s  ?  A.  Because  I  had  to  pay  my  rent  that 
month  and  had  none  to  spare. 

Q.  You  had  intended  to  present  him  a  New 
Year’s  present  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  took  this  pistol  on  the  morning 
of  this  occurrence  had  you  any  intention  of 
shooting  anybody?  A.  No,  sir  ;  I  had  not. 

Q.  What  time  was  it  you  left  the  room  that 


68 


morning  to  come  out  ?  A.  About  a  quarter  to 
twelve. 

Q.  When  you  were  informed  you  could  not 
get  in  the  closet  there  did  you  go  down  stairs  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  you  returned  up  stairs,  where  did 
you  meet  Watson?  A.  I  did  not  go  in  the 
shop.  I  knocked  at  the  door  ;  the  machinery 
was  going  and  they  could  not  hear  me.  It  was 
near  twelve  o’clock.  I  thought  I  would  go  back 
and  come  down  again  at  twelve  ai clock,  when 
the  door  would  be  open. 

Q.  When  you  went  up  stairs  where  did  you 
meet  Watson?  A.  At  the  top  of  the  stairs? 

Q.  Did  you  know  he  was  there  before  you 
got  up  ?  A.  I  saw  him  there  before  I  went  up  the 
stairs.  I  asked  him  if  he  was  going  down  stairs. 
He  said  no  ;  he  had  to  go  back  for  something. 
I  thought  he  had  gone  in  ;  when  I  got  to  the 
top  of  the  stairs  he  seized  hold  of  me — at  the 
top  of  the  second  flight. 

Q.  In  what  manner  did  he  seize  hold  of  you  ? 
A.  In  a  very  indecent  manner. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything?  A.  Yes;  but  I 
could  not  recollect  the  words.  He  wanted  me 
to  go  to  a  room  outside  somewhere. 

Q.  State  the  manner  in  which  he  spoke  ?  A. 
He  said  I  should  come  with  him. 

Q.  At  that  time  you  had  the  pistol  in  your 
hand  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  aim?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  you  shot?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  This  was  right  near  the  door  leading  into 
the  room  ?  4.  Right  near  the  door  leading 

into  the  little  hall  where  the  other  doors  lead 
into. 

Q.  When  he  seized  hold  of  you  and  said  you 
should  go  out  with  him,  did  you  try  to  break 
loose  ?  A.  Yes  ;  we  had  quite  a  struggle  ;  I  got 
free  from  him,  and  he  seized  me  the  second 
time. 

Q.  After  this  was  done  you  did  not  make 
any  attempt  to  get  away  ? 

The  COURT. — After  the  shooting,  what  did 
you  do  ?  A.  I  do  not  recollect  what  was  done. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Watson  ever  follow  you  to  Sun¬ 
day  School  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where  did  you  live  at  that  tune?  A.  I 
believe  I  was  boarding. 

Q.  Where?  A.  At  Mrs.  Shea’s. 

Q.  Where  did  Watson  live?  A.  He  lived 
with  Mrs.  Roche,  corner  of  Rush  street  and 
Wythe  avenue. 

Q.  How  often  did  he  follow  you  down  to 
Sunday  School  ?  A.  I  could  not  say  whether 
twice  or  how  many  times. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  Mr  Watson  say  whether 
he  had  studied  medicine  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  say  what  he  was  giving  you  those 
medicines  for  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  To  bring  on  your  periods  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  that  occur  frequently  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  saw  Dr.  Elliott  in  Washington?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  prescribe  for  you  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  give  you  medicine  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  has  been  your  health  compared  to 
what  it  was  before  you  went  to  Watson’s?  A. 
There  has  been  a  great  deal  ol  difference. 


Q.  Did  you  suffer  much  pain  from  tho  dif- 
Acuities  you  have  spoken  of?  A.  Yes,  si 

Q.  You  are  not  near  as  fleshy  as  you 
A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Morris  here  said  to  the  Court  he  d  rm 
think  of  anything  else  upon  which  to  ex  Jg 
the  witness  ;  that  there  might  be  a  single  w 
tion  that  had  escaped  his  memory. 

The  COURT. — The  statute  gives  the  pn» 
the  right  to  go  on  the  stand  and  testify  i  hi 
own  behalf.  I  should  be  loth  to  restricjj 
right  as  long  as  counsel  think  necessary  1 
on.  I  think  it  w'ould  be  wrong  in  the  Cc It 
exclude  anything  she  may  have  to  say.  I 
not  think  the  Court  is  at  liberty  further  t!  if 
restrict  the  consumption  of  time  within  r  too 
able  bounds. 

Re-c  ross-exam  ination. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  knowr  your  hu  ui 
before  you  were  married?  A.  Two  ora* 
months. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  on  intimate  (■ 
with  him  before  you  were  married?  Hmol 
did  he  pay  attention  to  you  as  a  suitoi  k 
Two  or  three  months. 

Q.  During  that  two  or  three  months  din 
have  any  improper  connection  with  Mr  fl 
son?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  often  ?  A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Many  times  or  few  during  that  p  od 
A.  It  was  not  so  very  many  times. 

Q.  How  soon  after  you  were  married  d  j« 
first  have  intimacy  with  Mr.  Watson  ?  l  . 
could  not  recollect  exactly  how  soon.  He  91 
to  follow  me  again  within  three  days  aftei  1 

Q.  How  soon  after  did  you  have  thill 
macy  with  him  ?  A.  It  may  have  beet! 
months. 

Q.  It  might  have  been  longer  than  one  id 
—might  have  been  two? 

(No  answer. ) 

Q.  On  the  morning  of  this  occurrence,  t 
time  he  accused  you  of  being  with  other  pil 
whom  did  he  specify  ?  A.  Mr.  Potts. 

Q.  Anybody  else  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  call  you  names  or  epithets  o  lty 
occasion  ?  A.  Yes,  sir.  He  said  I  was  nail 
but  a  prostitute  and  whore,  and  I  shoi  f! 
with  him. 

Q.  When  you  were  inside  the  room,  fii 
you  went  out  in  the  hall?  A.  He  verjlfl 
said  that. 

Q.  I  am  speaking  of  that  particular  nniijl 
before  you  got  out  in  the  hall.  When  yc«i 
before  that  he  charged  you  with  beinjra 
other  men,  did  he  call  you  any  opproi® 
epithets?  A.  He  said  I  whored  with  h® 
and  would  not  with  him. 

Q.  Did  he  say  that  likewise  out  on  Qxtii 
—outside?  A.  No,  sir;  he  said  that  Ik 
shop.  He  used  the  language  that  I  wm-’i 
thing  but  a  prostitute  and  a  whore,  and  ill 
should  go  with  him.” 

Q.  That  was  the  time  you  had  the  infill 
with  him  before  the  pistol  was  fired?  A.  ® 

Q.  How  did  you  happen  to  have  the  J** 
with  you  on  that  day  ?  A.  He  had  abut!  ■ 


69 


(3  day  before,  and  I  took  it  intending  to 
]en  him. 

i  Was  it  loaded?  A.  Yes. 
i  Did  you  know  it  was  loaded?  A.  Yes. 

\  How  many  charges  were  in  the  pistol  at 
t  ,ime  to  your  knowledge  ?  A.  One,  I 
is. 

[, ire  you  sure  of  that?  A.  Yes,  sir;  I 
(3  that  was  all. 

i  Did  not  your  husband  subsequently  fire 
bse  shots  after  the  shooting?  A.  Not  that 
rtware  of. 

[  How  many  times  did  you  shoot  on  that 
ion?  A.  Only  once,  to  my  knowledge. 

[.  ifou  took  the  pistol  how  many  days  before  ? 
(i.ly  this  day. 

(You  took  it  on  that  day  for  the  purpose  of 
fining  him?  A.  Yes. 

[Where  did  you  have  it  about  you?  A.  In 
Isom. 

[Was  it  cocked  when  it  was  in  your  bosom 
3,  ready  for  firing?  (Showing.)  A.  Not 
t  arn  aware  of. 

[You  did  not  do  it  when  you  put  it  there — 
pt  carry  it  that  way  to  your  knowledge  ? 
1,  sir. 

[While  this  conversation  was  going  on 
nn  you  and  Watson  this  pistol  was  in 
r  osom  ?  A.  Yes. 

[With  which  hand  did  you  take  it  out? 

I  on’t  recollect  that. 

[Was  it  immediately  after  the  use  of  this 
g  ge  which  you  have  described  that  you 

I I  the  pistol  ?  A.  I  don’t  recollect  when 
h  it  or  how  I  shot  it. 

i You  recollect  only  what  occurred  before 
..  I  recollect  some.  There  was  a  good 
1  at  I  don't  recollect. 

[.  low  long  do  you  think  you  talked  with 
i  A.  I  cannot  say. 

).  'our  or  five  minutes  ?  A.  I  don’t  know 

l  !an  you  give  us  some  idea  ?  A.  I  could 
i  eietly  say  how  long  it  was. 

I  )id  you  intend  to  shoot  Mr.  Watson  on 
t  casion?  A.  No,  sir,  I  did  not. 

).  'ou  had  no  such  intention  ?  A.  No,  sir. 
j.  >id  you  intend  to  hit  him?  A.  No,  sir; 
id  ot  take  aim  at  all. 

[Was  it  your  purpose  to  shoot  him?  A. 

!  . 

I ■  /hat  did  you  cock  the  pistol  for  ?  A.  I 
I’tpcbllect  what  for. 

[•  'o  you  mean  to  say  you  don’t  recollect 
oi  g  at  all?  A.  No,  sir;  I  don't  recollect 
v  was  done. 

i-  'o  you  recollect  shooting  at  all  ?  A.  No, 

l-  o  you  mean  to  say  now  that  you  have 
n  illection  that  you  shot  him  at  all  ?  A. 
n  illection  that  I  shot  him  ? 
i-  es.  A.  I  do  not  know  how  I  done  it. 
i-  o  you  mean  to  say  that  you  have  no  re- 
lei  on  that  you  fired  this  pistol  on  that 
asi?  A.  No,  sir;  I  have  no  recollection 
v  went  off.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it  at 

l  did  not  ask  if  you  recollected  how  you 
id  The  question  I  asked  you  is,  do  you 


recollect  the  fact  of  its  being  fired?  A.  No,  sir, 
I  don’t. 

Q.  That  you  mean  to  testify  to  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  recollect  anything 
after  that?  A.  I  could  not  say  how  long  it 
was. 

Q.  Where  were  you  ?  A.  In  the  shop ;  Aunt 
Mary’s  shop. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  Mrs.  Dexter  testify  as  to  a 
remark  made  by  you  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  after  you  went  up  stairs  ?  A.  I 
don’t  recollect  saying  it. 

Q.  You  were  considerably  excited,  were  you 
not  ?  A.  I  don’t  know  as  I  was. 

Q.  Where  do  you  say  you  was  when  you  first 
recollected  about  this  thing  ?  A.  In  the  shop. 

Q.  Did  you  then  recollect  that  you  had  shot 
this  pistol?  A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Where  was  the  pistol,  where  did  you  see 
it  next  ?  A.  At  the  station  house. 

Q.  You  saw  it  next  at  the  station  house  ?  A. 
Yes;  my  husband  gave  it  to  Capt.  Woglom. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  where  they  got 
it?  A.  No;  I  have  no  recollection  how  they 
got  it,  or  that  I  gave  it  up. 

Q.  Had  you  practiced  with  that  pistol  before 
this  shot  was  made  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  had  not  practiced  at  all  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Not  fired  at  all?  A. -No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  about  your  brother 
going  where  it  was  bought  to  inquire  how  to  use 
it?  A.  Yes;  he  went  the  same  night  it  was 
bought. 

Q.  How  came  he  to  go  ?  A.  He  had  the  pis¬ 
tol  and  did  not  know  how  to  work  it;  neither 
I,  my  husband,  nor  my  brother. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  you  did  not  know 
how  to  work  it  unless  you  tried?  A.  They 
tried. 

Q.  Who  tried?  A.  My  husband  and  my 
brother. 

Q.  In  your  presence  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where?  A.  In  my  kitchen;  I  was  getting 
supper  ready. 

A.  It  was  not  loaded  in  the  kitchen?  A, 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  after  you  left  these 
premises  before  you  went  to  the  Fifth  Precinct 
Station  house ?  A.  No  where;  we  went  right 
from  the  building  to  the  station  house. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  from  the  time  of  this  fir¬ 
ing  until  you  went  to  the  station  house  ?  A.  I 
don’t  know. 

Q.  How  did  you  happen  to  go  to  the  station 
house?  A.  I  went  along  with  my  husband, 
father  and  brother. 

Q.  How  did  you  come  to  decide  on  going  ? 
A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  You  remember  going  there?  Do  you  re¬ 
member  where  you  started  from  ?  You  say  yon 
remained  on  the  premises ;  where  did  you  start 
from  to  go  to  the  station  house?  A.  From  the 
shop. 

Q.  How  did  you  happen  to  start  from  the 
shop  ?  What  led  to  your  going  to  the  station 
house  ?  A.  I  wanted  to  give  myself  up. 

Q.  Did  anybody  suggest  to  you  the  propriety 
of  giving  yourself  up  ?  No,  sir;  not  that  I  re¬ 
collect. 


70 


Q.  It  was  your  own  act?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  not  your  husband  or  brother  suggest 
to  you  you  bad  better  go  to  the  station  bouse 
and  give  yourself  up?  A.  Not  that  I  recol¬ 
lect. 

Q.  It  was  your  own  act  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  went  on  your  own  vobtion  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  the  pistol  was  when 
you  started?  A.  No,  6ir. 

Q.  Had  you  any  conversation  between  the 
time  of  this  shooting  and  the  time  you  started  to 
go  to  the  station  house  with  anybody  about  the 
shooting?  A.  Not  that  I  can  recollect. 

Q.  Nothing  had  been  said  to  you  and  you  said 
nothing  to  anybody  on  that  subject?  A.  Not 
that  I  know  of. 

Q,  From  what  room  in  these  premises  did  you 
start  to  go  to  the  station  house?  A.  Down  in 
the  room  we  had  been  working  in;  my  aunt 
and  uncle’s. 

Q.  When  you  started,  was  anybody  there  ex¬ 
cept  your  brother,  husband  and  father?  A.  I 
don’t  know. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  seeing  anybody  when 
you  started?  A.  No,  sir;  I  don’t  recollect. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  was  said  at  the 
station  house  when  you  got  there?  A.  No,  sir; 
I  could  not  remember  exactly. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  you  said  anything  ?  •  A. 
Yes,  sir;  I  did  say  something. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  say  it?  A.  To  Capt. 
W  oglom. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  to  the  Sergeant  who 
was  sitting  back  of  the  desk?  A.  I  don’t  re¬ 
collect. 

Q.  When  you  got  to  the  station  house  and 
stated  this  matter  to  Capt  Woglom,  did  you 
say  this:  that  you  had  known  Mr.  Watson  for 
nearly  three  years,  that  he  had  seduced  you  and 
followed  you  from  that  time  to  this,  almost 
steady  ?  Did  you  say  that  in  substance  ?  A.  I 
might  have  said  it. 

Q.  Did  you  also  say  that  you  had  been  an¬ 
noyed  by  him  in  the  shop,  the  street,  and  in 
your  house  ?  A.  I  believe  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  also  say  that  the  night  before  the 
day  of  the  shooting  you  had  quarrelled  with  Mr. 
Watson?  A.  Not  to  my  recollection. 

Q.  Did  you  say  you  had  quarrelled  with  him 
on  that  day?  A.  I  was  quarrelling  continually; 
the  day  before  and  morning  before. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  him  that  you  had  quar¬ 
relled  with  Watson  on  that  day?  A.  I  don’t 
recollect. 

Q.  Did  you  say  to  him  that  you  had  quar¬ 
relled  with  him  the  night  before  ?  A.  I  don’t 
recollect. 

Q.  Did  you  say  he  had  abused  you  and  called 
'  you  a  whore  and  accused  you  of  going  with 
other  men  ?  A.  I  don’t  recollect ;  I  was  very 
much  excited,  I  suppose. 

Q.  See  if  you  recollect  that ;  that’s  all  I  desire 
to  know  ?  A.  I  don’t  recollect, 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  then  adding— so  that  you 
“  could  not  stand  it  any  longer,”  and  that  you 
“shot  him  for  satisfaction?”  A.  I  don’t 
recollect  saying  that. 

Q.  Have  you  talked  with  your  brother  about 
this  matter  since  ?  A.  N  o,  sir. 


Q.  Did  you  talk  to  him  before  about:1 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  him  at  all  abi  > 
matter,  from  the  time  you  bought  the 
down  to  the  time  the  shot  was  fired  ? 
sir. 

Q.  Never  talked  with  him  about  it?— 1 
did  you  get  this  pistol  from  when  you  | 
that  day  and  put  it  in  your  bosom  ?  A. ' 
my  bureau  drawer. 

Q.  It  was  in  your  bureau  drawer  ?  A  i 

Q  Do  you  know  where  your  brother  i . 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  is  in  th  a 
A.  I  don’t  know  where  he  is  ;  I  don’t; 
whether  he  is  in  the  city  or  not. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  him  since  ?  A.  No 

Mr.  MORRIS.— He  will  be  on  hand  aij 
you  desire  him. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  have  desired  him  i 
last  two  months. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — He  will  be  on  hand  i| 
vou  would  like  to  trv  him. 

Mr.  BRITTON.— I  would  like  to  tl 
now  ;  it  has  cost  me  a  good  deal  of  m  i 
try  to  find  him. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — He  will  be  on  hand 
you  are  ready. 

Q.  All  the  difference  you  had  with  i 
that  day  grew  out  of  the  statement  yc! 
made  here  about  going  with  other  me' 
No,  sir. 

Q.  The  conversational  difference  ?  ’ 
sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  difference  that  oi 
between  you  and  Watson  on  that  day  tl. 
have  not  detailed  ?  A.  He  wanted  me  tel 
to  a  room  with  him. 

Q.  Anything  more  than  you  have  i 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q  Mr.  Watson,  you  said,  had  been! 
habit  of  giving  you  medicine  ?  A.  Yes.  1 

Q.  How  did  he  know  when  these  timel 
did  you  inform  him,  or  did  he  keep  tra  < 
himself  ?  A.  He  kept  track  of  it  himseh 

The  Court  here  renewed  to  the  juis 
caution  of  the  previous  days  and  adjoin 
the  next  day. 


FOURTH  DAY. 


a 

cfl 


On  the  opening  of  Court,  Mr.  BB 
said  :  If  the  Court  please,  I  regret  to  si 
I  have  to  say,  if  this  trial  proceeds,  am  r 
deem  to  be  in  discharge  of  my  official  cjd 
is  simply  to  call  the  attention  of  the  (  if 
the  fact  which  has  come  to  my  knowledj 
one  of  the  jurors  on  this  panel,  Mr.  R‘ 

I  mention  the  name  because  it  is  jus* 
as  well  as  to  myself, — took  occasion,  li 
to  say  to  another  person — I  think  one 
other  jurors — after  the  case  was  adjoi 
in  his  judgment  any  man  who  would 
girl  not  over  fifteen  years  of  age  ougl 
shot.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  f 
thing  with  reference  to  the  impropriety 


71 


mark,  pending  the  trial,  before  it  is  half 
.i  ed.  But,  notwithstanding,  I  cannot  re- 
dfrom  saying  something  on  that  subject,  if 
a  be  the  fact,  which  I  hope  it  is  not,  yet  the 
I'c  nation  came  to  me  in  such  a  way  that  I 
a  not  by  any  possibility  ignore  it,  as  a  pub- 
ilcer.  I  felt  it  more  gravely  that  such  a 
ark  should  be  made,  because,  relying  on 
i  mor  and  the  integrity  of  this  juror,  know- 
gje  was  a  client  of  the  learned  counsel  on 
3  her  side,  I  did  not  object,  having  confi- 
n ,  as  I  still  have,  in  the  honor  and  integrity 
1 ;  action  at  the  conclusion  of  the  case. 

I\  MORRIS. — I  don’t  know  the  object  of 
e  ounsel’s  remarks,  not  having  heard  any 
g  stion. 

5  BRITTON. — The  object  in  calling  the 
eion  of  the  Court  was  that  the  Court  might 
gsst  to  the  jury  the  impropriety  of  such  re¬ 
in,  pending  the  trial,  and  avoid  them  in 
;  and  the  further  object  is  to  state  that, 
r  understanding,  that  course  of  procedure 
c  itrary  to  law,  and  it  would  be  proper  to 
Cf proceedings  after  the  trial  with  reference 
i  I  have  no  feeling  with  reference  to  the 
itr  except  that  this  trial  should  be  conducted 
ri  and  justly  by  all  parties  engaged  in  it, 
at  at  its  conclusion,  whatever  the  result 
roe,  we  all  may  readily  acquiesce, 
ti  MORRIS. — I  suppose  there  was  a  pur- 
s  n  making  the  statement ;  but  I  am  inclined 
tnk  the  purpose  was  different  from  that  in- 
3:  d  by  the  counsel.  Now  when  the  jury 
a  impanneled  the  Court  will  bear  me  wit- 
s:!  was  not  the  party  challenging.  Most  of 
anusiness  in  this  case  was  done  by  the  pros- 
n  m — I  undertake  to  say  to  a  greater  extent 
h  ever  has  been  done  in  any  case  in  this 
eu  where  a  party  has  been  placed  on  trial  for 
e.  The  counsel  refers  to  Mr.  Rowan.  I 
v  never  done  any  business  for  Mr.  Rowan 
'f  life,  nor  have  our  relations  been  at  all 
n  than  friendly.  I  believe  my  partner  did 
n  ime  or  another  draw  a  lease  for  Mr. 
>vn;  I  believe  he  did  some  time  or  another, 
h  that  juror  was  called  that  was  indicated, 
d  10  suggestion  was  made  by  counsel  or  re- 
e  that  the  juror  stand  aside,  because  the 
;t  hat  the  partner  with  whom  I  am  engaged 
siness  now,  some  time  previous  had  done 
n  trifling  act  was  too  absurd  and  ridiculous 
l  ice  as  having  any  influence.  But  no  sug- 
si  n  was  made  by  counsel;  and,  I  submit,  if 
e  ourt  please,  the  making  that  suggestion 
iv  3  not  for  a  proper  purpose,  and  not  in  the 
o  r  discharge  of  official  duty,  at  this  stage 
d  nder  such  circumstances. 

1  BRITTON. — These  remarks  are  wholly 
ic  .ed  for  by  the  defendant’s  counsel.  I  do 
>t  old  my  official  conduct  for  him  to  review, 
'l'  o  I  mean  to  follow  in  the  tracks  he  has 
M«id  out  before  me.  I  have  not  complained 
1  s  juror  in  any  sense.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
ic  pted  him  and  relied  upon  his  honor.  But 
hi  I  said  I  had  a  right  to  say  in  order  to 
a  against  like  circumstances  hereafter.  I 
a  not  arise  here  to  def  end  my  motives  from 
P  ion  of  counsel;  and  it  is  not  for  me  to 
g;,3t  to  the  Court  nor  counsel  on  the  other 
it  hat  that  remark  by  him  was  made  under 


circumstances  entirely  improper  and  contrary 
to  the  admonition  of  the  Court  already  given 
the  jury. 

The  COURT.— There  is  no  motion  before  the 
Court.  Each  juror  impanneled  on  the  case 
has  been  sworn  to  render  a  verdict  according 
to  the  law  and  the  evidence.  Their  communi¬ 
cations  with  each  other  are  strictly  privileged. 
and  until  they  themselves  commit  a  breach  of 
that  privilege  the  Court  has  no  jurisdiction 
over  the  jury.  There  being  no  motion  before 
the  Court  the  examination  of  witnesses  will 
proceed. 

Mr.  ROWAN  (the  juror). — I  did  not  under¬ 
stand  exactly  what  the  District  Attorney  said. 
Did  I  understand  him  to  say  that  I  said  to  a 
juror  on  this  panel  that  I  thought  that — 

Mr.  BRITTON  (interrupting). — I  understood 
it  to  be  to  another  juror.  I  am  not  certain  of 
that. 

The  COURT. — That  the  juror  named  said  to 
another  juror,  “that  any  man  who  seduced  a 
girl  fifteen  years  of  age  ought  to  be  shot.  ”  That 
is  an  abstract  proposition,  and  may  or  may  not 
have  any  application  to  the  facts  of  this  case, 
The  facts  are  yet  to  be  determined  from  the 
evidence  to  come  in  as  well  as  that  which  has 
been  put  in. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — As  the  Court  has  very  prop¬ 
erly  and  justly  remarked  that  wras — as  stated 
by  the  District  Attorney  —  a  communication 
from  a  fellow  juror,  considered  to  be  privileged. 
A  more  fitting  rebuke  could  not  come  from  the 
Court. 

Mr.  ROWAN](the  juror). — I  will  state  for  the 
information  of  the  District  Attorney  that  I 
have  no  knowledge  of  making  any  such  assertion 
to  any  juror,  nor  to  any  person  that  lives. 

Mr.  BRITTON  — I  am  very  happy  to  know  it 
if  it  is  so. 

The  COURT. — Now  let  the  witness  be  sworn; 
the  juror  stands  fairly  on  the  record. 


Joseph  II.  Barclay — Sworn  for 
Defendant. 

Q.  What  is  your  business?  A.  At  present 
am  clerk  in  a  law  office  with  Crooke,  Bergen  & 
Clement. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  accused, 
Fanny  Hyde?  A.  Iam. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  her?  A.  Three 
years,  perhaps  a  little  over. 

Q.  During  that  portion  of  the  time  did  you 
reside  in  the  same  house  ?  A.  I  did,  sir,  and 
reside  there  now. 

Q.  That  wras  about  a  year  before  she  was 
married?  A.  Yes;  about  a  year  before  she  was 
married  I  first  went  to  the  house. 

Q.  You  was  studying  law  at  that  time?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  You  was  home  most  of  the  time — even¬ 
ings?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Most  every  evening  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  had  occasion  to  see  a  great  deal  of 
her  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  So  far  as  you  observed  what  was  her  con- 


duct  for  propriety,  and  in  every  respect  ?  A. 
As  far  as  I  saw  it  was  very  good  in  every  re¬ 
spect  I  saw  nothing  out  of  the  way.  She  was 
very  industrious.  At  night  mostly  home. 

Q  What  year  was  you  first  acquainted  with 
her  ?  A.  I  think  in  1869. 

Q.  While  in  the  house  with  her  her  conduct 
was  uniformly  good?  A.  Yes,  very  good.? 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  anything  that  indicated 
impropriety  on  her  part  ?  A.  I  never  did. 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  say  you  was  in  the 
house  with  her  ?  A.  I  think  about  six  or  eight 
months. 

Q.  What  were  your  means  of  seeing  her  that 
time?  A.  I  was  at  work  during  the  day;  and 
evenings  after  I  came  home  I  was  studying  law 
until  about  nine  or  ten  o’clock. 

Q.  During  the  time  she  was  at  work,  and 
when  you  was  not  at  home,  you  saw  nothing  of 
her?  A.  No;  I  saw  her  Sundays  and  evenings 
when  I  was  at  home. 

Q.  She  occupied  part  of  the  house  and  you  a 
part  ?  A.  Yes. 


John  Byrne,  M.  D. — Sioorn  for  the 
Defendant. 


suffering  from  the  cause  I  have  stated,  o 
sudden  shock  or  fright? 

Objection  to  the  question. 

The  COURT. — The  whole  question. 

Mr.  BRITTON.— Yes,  six. 

The  COURT.  — What  would  be  the  effe 
the  mental  system  ? 

Mr.  MORRIS. — The  mind. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  submit  that  there 
proof  here  whatever  as  a  foundation  foi 
question.  There  is  no  evidence  of  any .* 
in  this  case,  immediately  or  at  all  approxin 
antecedent  to  this  act.  The  testimony,  t 
as  I  understand  it,  does  not  show  any  si 
shock  at  all.  It  simply  shows  that  this  dt 
ant  took  a  pistol  from  her  drawer  that  mor 
took  it  to  this  place  in  her  bosom,  and  the 
person  who  was  killed,  as  he  had  often  dot 
fore,  accused  her  indoors  of  some  acts, 
afterwards  outside,  and,  having  lived  wit 
two  or  three  years  adulterously,  he  mad 
vances  to  her  for  that  purpose,  asking  her 
elsewhere,  and  that  he  took  hold  ot  her  v 
view  of  inducing  her,  or  coercing  her,  m  . 
ited  sense,  as  it  were,  if  it  may  be  so  const 
to  go  out  for  that  purpose  ;  that  some  kim 
struggle  ensued,  and  he  was  shot. 

The  COURT. — If  for  the  words  “stl 
shock”  should  be  substituted  “attack  oi 
person.” 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  would  not  object  t: 
question  if  it  stated  the  facts  and  asked 
effect. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — I  suppose  the  line  of  1 
marks  will  be  considered  in  the  line  of  hii 
fession.  I  shall  not  imitate  Ins  example, 
counsel  may  say  that  I  have  not  stated  it  \> 
the  evidence,  but  I  have  a  right  to  state  a 
thetical  question.  He  may  state  it  in  hi 
and  I  will  state  it  in  my  way.  I  shall  art 
the  jury  that  the  question  comes  withii 
evidence.  He  may  argue  the  other  wa 
state  it  as  a  hypothetical  question,  ant 
counsel  cannot  say,  in  advance  of  the  judp 
of  this  jury,  what  facts  are  proven  or  win 
evid  -nee  establishes. 

The  COURT. — I  am  of  opinion  that  tk 
evidence  in  this  case  as  to  the  health  of  t; 
cused,  of  her  sickness  and  suffering, 
respect  to  this  sudden  shock,  which  is  th 
jective  point  in  the  question,  it  has  its  si 
tion  in  the  statement  of  the  accused  vesti 
that  the  deceased  made  an  attack  on  he 
she  sought  to  defend  herself.  In  view  o: 
statement  the  question  is  admitted. 

A.  The  effect  would  be  to  totally  miner 
party,  and  destroy  any  intelligence  as  t 
acts,  under  the  circumstances. 

Q.  I  will  put  the  hypothetical  question  :l 
other  form.  Take  a  young  girl  of  nel 
temperament,  who  is  employed  in  a  fact 7 
fifteen  years  of  age  by  a  man  in  the  nek* 
hood  of  forty  ;  after  she  has  been  in  his  eil 
about  five  or  six  months  he  seduces  hers 
has  a  step-mother — her  mother  having! 
at  the  age  of  four  years — who  is  stern 
strict  with  her  ;  her  father  is  also  stern ! 
this  man  keeps  up  that  intercourse  for  i< 
siderable  period  of  time  by  threats  of  expel 
during  this  period  her  health  declines,  he  it 


Q.  How  long  have  vou  been  practicing  medi¬ 
cine?  A.  About  twenty-four  years. 

Q.  Have  you  given  any  especial  study  to  dis¬ 
eases  peculiar  to  the  female  sex  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

•  Q.  Are  you  connected  now  with  any  public 
institution  where  those  diseases  are  especially 
treated  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  ones  ?  A.  The  W omen’s  Hospital, 
St.  Mary’s.  I  have  charge  of  that  institution. 

The  COURT.— Where  is  it  ?  A.  Dean  street, 
this  city. 

Q.  You  are  connected  with  other  medical  in¬ 
stitutions  ?  A  I  am  connected  with  the  Long 
Island  Medical  College  ;  am  Clinical  Professor 
of  Uterine  Diseases. 

Q.  Give  in  some  idea  as  to  the  extent  of  your 
experience  in  this  branch  ot  the  medical  profes¬ 
sion?  A.  My  experience  has  been  gathered 
from  pretty  extensive  and  long  practice,  and 
from  having  been  specially  devoted  to  this 
branch  of  the  medical  education. 

Q.  What  is  the  effect  of  painful  dismenorrhoea, 
or  menstrual  difficulties,  on  the  mind  of  a  person 
of  nervous  temperament  ?  A.  The  effect  is 
often  times  disturbing  to  the  mind,  and  in  ner¬ 
vous  temperaments  will  intensely  increase  ner¬ 
vous  irritability. 

Q.  Have  you,  in  your  experience  in  this 
branch  of  the  medical  profession,  known  of 
cases  of  great  mental  and  nervous  disturbance 
that  have  been  attributable  solely,  as  you  con¬ 
sider,  to  this  cause  ?  A.  I  have. 

Q.  Is  it  an  infrequent  cause  of  producing 
mental  disturbance  ?  A.  Not  infrequent 

Q.  And  is  that  doctrine  sustained  by  medical 
writers  on  this  subject  ?  A.  It  is. 

Q.  What  would  be  the  effect  on  a  person  in 
delicate  health,  of  a  nervous  temperament,  and 


73 


iod  deal  wasted,  she  broods  over  this  dif- 
and  misfortune,  frequently  manifesting 
3ars  and  grief,  and  begs  of  him  to  leave 
one  ;  he  still  pursues  her  ;  she  meets  a 
man  where  she  has  been  living,  forms 
i  plain  tance,  and  after  two  or  three  months, 
i  s  him,  the  man  who  had  seduced  her  be- 
arriage  swearing  that  he  will  never  pur- 
I  r  further  if  she  marries  ;  he  subsequently 
1 3,  and,  by  threats,  holding  her  in  his  power, 
iues  a  similar  intercourse,  and  this  is  kept 
I'  a  considerable  period,  she  suffering 
t  from  menstrual  difficulties,  and  is  suf- 
i  from  that  cause  at  the  time  to  which  I 
•  she  takes  a  pistol  from  her  house  without 
i  :ent  to  shoot  any  one  ;  she  is  seen  in  the 
-ig  by  a  number  of  people,  with  an  un- 
3  look,  looking  wildly  out  of  her  eyes  ; 
:  kes  use  of  expressions  indicating  she  was 
e plating  suicide;  she  goes  out  into  the 
id  suddenly,  while  thus  suffering,  this 
izes  hold  of  her  in  an  indecent  and  lewd 
r/,  and  declares  she  shall  go  out  with  him. 
tio  you  think,  she  suffering  from  the 
e  l  have  indicated,  would  be  the  effect 
ijier  mental  condition?  A.  I  think  its 
t  ould  be  to  temporarily  destroy  her  rea¬ 
lly,  supposing  all  these  facts  as  to  her 
i  1  and  nervous  condition  to  be  true. 

will  state  the  hypothetical  question 
ti  differently:  A  little  girl  ten  years 

i  comes  to  this  country  from  Eng- 
>  join  her  father  who  has  preceded 
:e  had  very  few  advantages  of  men- 

ii  ire,  having  been  set  at  work  at  a  very 
“age;  from  the  time  she  was  five  or 
e3  of  age  she  was  in  the  habit  of  attend- 
5i  day  School,  and  felt  much  interested  in 
a  3;  she  was  kind  and  obedient;  shortly 

I  ‘  arrival  here,  her  father  being  poor,  she 
p  at  work,  and  kept  steadily  employed; 
rt  a  of  the  time  she  attended  night-school, 

■e  le  received  premiums  for  her  attention 
in,  and  good  conduct;  her  nervous  organ- 
31  delicate,  her  bodily  health  remarkably 
’  1  a  fine>  Pure  complexion,  good; 
ftures,  round,  well-developed  form,  dis- 

ic  kind,  fond  of  children,  temperament 
rf  ’e  and  spirit;  at  the  age  of  15  she  is  en- 
i  the  factory  of  the  deceased,  and  at  that 
si  was  pure  and  virtuous;  the  deceased 
i  j in  upwards  of  40  years  of  age;  she  had 
ei  with  the  deceased  about  six  months ; 

to  the  factory  one  day  after  some  mate- 
fo  some  work,  and  found  him  alone;  he 
d  e  door,  and  before  she  left,  succeeded 
efciching  her;  she  now  felt  keenly  her 
id.'  on,  and  brooded  over  her  condition, 
tang  her  grief  in  frequent  tears;  her 
H  s  a  stem  man ;  her  mother  died  when 
iaf  child,  and  her  step-mother,  while  not 
38,1 8  aer’  was  strict  and  formal,  there 
?  J  t  that  degree  of  confidence  between 
1 1  usually  exists  between  mother  and 
she  was  greatly  troubled  in  her  mind 
sec  it  of  her  misfortune,  and  did  not  know 
to  o;  she  brooded  over  it  and  had  no  con- 

I I  vhom  she  could  relate  the  story  of  her 
€>||er  destroyer  continued  his  criminal 
coy.e,  compelling  her  to  yield  to  his  wishes 


by  threats  of  exposure ;  she  became  enciente,  and 
he  procured  medicine  and  compelled  her  to  take 
it  with  the  object  of  bringing  on  her  periods. 
This  occurred  frequently;  she  was  irregular  in 
her  periods,  suffered  greatly  in  consequence  of 
menstrual  difficulties;  under  her  misfortunes  a 
marked  change  took  place  in  her  disposition; 
she  became  irritable,  less  subject  to  parental 
control,  careless  as  to  personal  appearance,  her 
health  gradually  declined,  her  formerly  health¬ 
ful  color  disappeared,  and  she  became  pale  and 
emaciated;  about  fifteen  months  after  her  ruin 
was  accomplished  she  made  the  acquaintance  of 
her  present  husband,  an  apprentice;  after  a  few 
months  he  offered  marriage;  the  deceased  urged 
her  to  marry,  promising,  and  taking  an  oath  to 
the  effect,  that  if  she  married  he  would  never 
pursue  her  further;  she  was  married;  she  hon¬ 
estly  intended  to  be  true  to  her  marriage  vow; 
she  had  been  married  but  a  short  time  when  de¬ 
ceased  again  came  to  see  her,  and  under  threats 
of  exposure,  accomplished  his  purpose  as  be¬ 
fore;  she  felt  keenly  her  degradation;  she  now 
felt  the  wrong  to  her  husband,  and  it  preyed 
upon  her  mind  until  she  declared  to  her 
mother-in-law,  without  stating  the  cause,  that 
a  curse  hung  over  her;  her  health  and 
strength  fell  away;  she  suffered  much  from  pain¬ 
ful  dissmenorrhoea ;  her  husband  became  alarmed 
at  her  physical  condition,  and  she  was  sent  to 
her  mother-in-law’s,  at  Washington,  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  seeing  a  physician.  She  saw  Dr.  Elliott 
and  he  prescribed  for  her.  She  had  been  there 
but  a  short  time  when  her  husband  wrote  her  to 
return,  he  having  gone  to  New  Britain,  Connec¬ 
ticut,  for  the  purpose  of  working.  She  was 
greatly  distressed  in  her  mind,  on  account  of 
her  misfortune;  she  wept  bitterly,  and  it  was 
then  she  stated  that  she  felt  a  curse  hanging 
over  her  head.  This  was  in  the  spring  of  1871. 
She  went  to  join  her  husband  in  New  Britain, 
where  she  resumed  her  labor,  although  suffering 
much  from  causes  stated.  While  here,  de¬ 
ceased  took  her  to  his  own  house  and  intro¬ 
duced  her  to  his  own  family,  and  she  slept  with 
his  daughter  and  little  girl,  and  here  he  contin¬ 
ued  his  persecutions  until  she,  in  her  despera¬ 
tion,  in  presence  of  her  husband,  charged  him 
with  having  accomplished  her  ruin.  He  admit¬ 
ted  the  fact,  and  begged,  for  the  sake  of  his  wife 
and  children  they  would  not  expose  him,  and 
promised  again  that  he  would  cease  his  perse¬ 
cutions.  She  and  her  husband  immediately  left 
New  Britain,  and  returned  to  Brooklyn.  Shortly 
after  he  returns  and  renews  his  visits,  and 
threatened  to  expose  her  in  such  a  manner  that 
it  would  come  to  the  ears  of  her  father,  and 
under  the  power  and  influence  of  such  threats 
he  again  renewed  his  criminal  intimacy.  He 
dogged  her  about,  watching  her  wherever  she 
went.  He  tried  to  induce  her  to  go  to  New 
York  to  live.  Before  the  holidays  she  heard  her 
husband  would  like  to  have  a  pistol ;  the  sugges¬ 
tion  was  made  because  some  burglaries  had  been 
committed  in  the  neighborhood.  She  made  up 
her  mind  to  make  her  husband  a  present  of  one 
and,  about  the  5th  or  6th  of  January,  having 
had  to  pay  her  rent  previously,  and  thus  having 
no  money  on  New  Year’s  day  to  pay  it,  she  pur¬ 
chased  one— her  brother  being  with  her— and 


74 


gave  it  to  her  husband.  It  was  kept  in  the 
house  two  or  three  weeks,  and  on  that  day  she 
put  it  in  her  bosom.  She  said  that  she  thought 
it  might  frighten  him  and  induce  him  to  leave 
her  alone  and  desist  his  persecutions ;  that  she 
had  no  idea  of  injuring  anyone;  her  physical 
condition  at  the  time  was  weak,  and  she  was  suf¬ 
fering  greatly  from  dissmenorrhoea.  Her  grand¬ 
father  was  insane,  and  committed  suicide  by 
drowning.  She  acted  strangely  during  the  lore- 
part  of  the  day  of  the  homicide,  which  was  at 
about  12  m.  She  was  observed  sitting  by  the 
stove,  looking  steadily  as  if  some  great  grief  was 
pressing  her  mind.  Her  aunt  spoke  to  her  and 
she  replied,  “I  wish  I  was  dead;”  and  when 
asked  why,  she  said  for  many  reasons.  On 
another  occasion  the  same  morning,  she  was  no¬ 
ticed  by  a  person  who  was  in  the  habit  of  seeing 
her  daily,  and  he  states  that  she  had  a  strange 
appearance,  and  could  not  describe  it;  her  color 
was  unnatural,  eyes  red;  and  another  describes 
her  as  having  a  wild,  strange  appearance.  She 
goes  into  the  room  and  sees  a  person  there  she 
was  well  acquainted  with  and  takes  no  notice  of 
them  and  does  not  speak  to  them.  She  left  the 
room  and  went  up  stairs  for  the  purpose  of 
going  to  a  closet :  her  strange  look  then  attracted 
attention ;  the  closets  up  stairs  being  occupied, 
she  went  below ;  the  door  was  locked,  and  she 
ran  back  up  stairs.  As  she  got  at  the  head  of 
the  stairs,  the  deceased,  who  had  been  watching 
for  her,  and  whom  she  supposed  was  in  the 
room,  suddenly  caught  hold  of  her,  saying  that 
she  should  go  out  with  him.  A  brief  struggle 
ensued,  and  in  that  struggle  he  was  shot.  She 
says  she  did  not  know  how  it  occurred,  that  she 
had  no  idea  of  the  shooting,  and  took  no  aim, 
don't  recollect  how  it  was  done,  don’t  recollect 
to  whom  she  gave  the  pistol  or  who  took  it. 
Now,  Doctor,  taking  all  these  matters  into  con¬ 
sideration,  what,  in  your  opinion,  was  the  effect 
upon  her  mind  of  this  unexpected  attack  ?  A. 
Premising,  sir,  that  before  this  last  act  of  shoot¬ 
ing,  from  the  statement  made  that  her  mind  was 
in  a  state  of  incipient  menstrual  mania,  as  de¬ 
scribed  by  authorities,  I  say,  premising  such,  I 
would  say  that  at  the  time  of  the  act  she  was  not 
in  her  right  mind,  she  was  insane  to  all  intents 
and  purposes. 

Q.  Can  you  state  whether  producing  an  abor¬ 
tion  upon  a  young  girl  sixteen  years  of  age,  by 
drugs  and  medicines,  would  have  a  tendency  to 
affect  the  mind  of  a  person  of  nervous  organi¬ 
zation  ?  A.  It  would,  as  any  other  debilitating 
circumstance  would,  by  depressing  her  physical 
powers  and  working  upon  her  nervous  system. 

Q.  In  your  general  practice,  is  it  unusual  for 
you  to  find  young  girls,  during  certain  periods, 
when  they  are  affected  with  mens  final  difficul¬ 
ties,  to  be  affected  mentally  during  that  period  ? 
A.  They  are  affected  mentally  to  the  extent  of 
hysterical  paroxysms. 

Q.  And  from  that  cause  alone?  A.  From 
that  cause  alone. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — I  desire  to  withdraw  this 
witness,  having  questioned  him  as  to  this  par¬ 
ticular  branch,  and  put  another  on  the  stand, 
and  then  recall  this  witness  and  conclude  his 
examination. 


Mr.  BRITTON. — I  would  like  to  cro 
amine  him. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — The  witness  is  to  b 
examined  in  full. 

The  COURT. — If  the  District  Attorney  v 
to  cross-examine  him  now,  you  desire  to 
him  on  the  direct  ? 

Mr.  BRITTON.— I  don’t  desire  couni 
examine  him  on  any  other  subject  mat! 
desire  to  cross-examine  now,  while  the  si 
is  fresh  in  my  mind. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — It  will  be  the  same  s 
matter. 


Dr.  Charles  Correy — Sworn. 


Q.  How  long  have  you  been  practising 
sician  ?  A.  Sixteen  and  a  half  years. 

Q.  And  during  that  time  you  have  mai 
study  of  the  mind  and  its  disease  a  spei 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  institutions  have  you  been  con  i 
with  ?  A.  The  New  York  City  Lunatic  All 
on  Blackwell’s  Island,  and  subsequently,  I 
years,  at  the  Bloomingdale  Asylum  til 
insane. 

Q.  You  was  at  the  Asylum  on  Blacl 
Island  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  connected  with 
A.  I  was  there  near  a  year. 

Q.  You  have  been  eleven  years  aequ 
with  the  treatment  of  these  diseases  ?  A 
nearly  eleven  years. 

Q.  And  since  then  you  have  given  n» 
less  attention  to  the  subject  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  delusion,  ol 
siloria  mania,  is  a  condition  recogniij 
medical  authorities  ?  A.  It  is. 

Q.  Is  it  sometimes  designated  iinpukM 
sanity  ?  A.  It  is. 

Q.  What  temperament  would  be  most 
to  be  affected  by  a  sudden  shock  ?  A.  1 
called  the  nervous  or  excitable  temperam 

Q.  Is  a  sudden  shock  recognized  as 
of  producing  insanity  ?  A.  It  is. 

Q.  Is  grief,  or  long  continued  broodii 
a  subject  that  causes  grief,  considers 
cause?  A.  It  is. 

q>.  You  have  read  Dr.  Ray’s  Medica 
prudence  ?  A.  I  have.  • 

Q.  Do  you  regard  that  as  high  authorial 
It  is  considered  among  the  best. 

Q.  Dr.  Beauford,  Professor  of  Psych 
Medicine,  St.  George’s  Hospital,  Lone 
he  considered  high  authority  on  this 
A.  He  is. 

Q.  And  is  it  not  a  fact  well  recogniz 
this  form  of  insanity  may  be  suddenly 
and  suddenly  disappear  ?  A.  Ithiukit. 

Q.  It  is  brief  in  its  duration  ?  A.  It 
more  marked  symptoms. 

Q.  Is  it  not  the  fact  that  the  more  su 
attack  the  shorter  is  the  duration  ?  AJ 
rally  so. 

Q.  Is  insanity7  in  the  family  consider 
disposing  cause  ?  A.  It  is. 

Q.  -And  is  it  not  a  recognized  fac*  tha1 


75 


e  generations  and  appear  again  ?  A.  That 

Have  you  read  the  article  by  Dr.  Jarvis, 
shed  in  the  American  Journal  of  Insanity 
lly,  1869  ?  A.  I  have. 

That  is  published  at  Utica  and  signed  by 
hay  ?  A.  Yes. 

I  have  the  article  here  ;  I  will  call  your 
cion  to  it — (to  some  portions  of  it) — and 
whether  it  agrees  with  your  experience  and 
ledge  of  the  subject.  Referring  to  mania 
iioria,  he  says  : 

'his  is  a  form  of  mental  disorder  which 
nly  appears  in  a  person  previously  sane, 
supposed  to  be  unsound  in  mind  ;  it  has 
i-t  duration  and  suddenly  disappears.  This 
j  exclusively  a  new  or  an  old  doctrine,  but 
;  been  taught  in  France  and  Germany  and 
t  countries,  and  by  managers  of  the  insane 
l  y  writers  on  these  topics.  It  is  recognized 
y  psychological  authorities  of  Great  Britain 
U  admitted  by  Courts  and  juries  having 
anagement  of  persons  who  have  committed 
>  hich  would  otherwise  have  been  considered 
cninal,  and  for  which  they  would  other- 
eave  been  doomed  to  death  by  the  scaffold.  ” 
a  o  the  manner  of  its  appearance  and  dis- 
it  -ance  and  its  recognition  by  the  authori- 
i  ferred  to,  does  that  agree  with  your  ex¬ 
it  ce  and  knowledge  on  the  subject  ?  A.  It 
is  !r  ;  but  I  should  like  to  be  understood  as 
itng  that  there  always  exists,  previous  to 
ciurrence  of  the  act  of  violence,  some  evi- 
icof  mental  disturbance, 
i.  Jertainly.  A.  In  other  words,  I  would 
k  understood  as  sustaining  the  doctrine 
t  i  to  a  certain  moment  a  person  may  un¬ 
is  nably  be  sane,  the  next  moment  insane, 

1  i  lin  the  next  moment  perfectly  sane. 

lertainly  not.  I  am  not  aware  that  doc- 
le  as  ever  been  attempted  to  be  advanced  in 
It  <  >e.  A.  That  is  the  popular  feeling  that 
li  1  men  are  not  disposed  to  uphold. 

Hereditary  disposition  you  would  consider 
or  of  the  pre-existing  causes  ?  A.  I  should, 
i  ainful  dismenorrhoea  you  would  regard 
m  her  pre-disposmg  cause  ?  A.  Yes. 
i-  l  ave  you  read  the  articles  published  by 
.  C  itelman  in  the  American  Journal  on  the 
je  ?  A.  I  have. 

b  Mania  instantaneous,  temporary,  transi- 
y,  leting;  a  mental  disorder  which  breaks 
.  t  Idenly  like  the  sudden  loss  of  sense  by 
ae  hysical  disease:  the  subject  is  urged  in 
aoent  to  automatic  acts  which  could  not 
e  Uen  foreseen.1'  Does  that  accord  with 
ir  periences  or  knowledge  on  this  subject? 
It!  res. 

I-  ois  is  a  French  author  is  he  not?  A. 

i8‘ 

b-  it  not  a  fact  that  a  great  many  people 
n  itally  affected,  and  yet  their  ailment  is 
s  h  as  to  be  discovered  by  the  ordinary 
er  '?  A.  Very  frequently, 
i-  |  it  not  a  fact  that  they  are  frequently 
m  to  deceive  the  physicians  of  the  hos- 
‘k  A.  That  is  so. 

i-  id  that,  too,  when  they  are  unquestion- 
yi  ane?  A.  Yes. 

I  fill  call  your  attention  to  an  article  by 


De  Vergie  entitled,  “Where  does  reason  end 
and  insanity  begin  ?” 

“Besides  these  cases  of  insanity,  produced 
under  all  those  causes,  there  Ls  another  to  which 
they  give  the  name  of  ‘Transitory  Insanity’  — 
that  is  to  say,  without  preceding  apparent  symp¬ 
toms,  without  causes  near  or  remote,  appreci¬ 
able  to  the  world,  bursting  out  as  suddenly  as  a 
clap  of  thunder,  and  ceasing  with  the  criminal 
act.  I  should  be  able  to  discover  certain  evi¬ 
dences  of  mental  disturbances  immediately  fol¬ 
lowing  the  criminal  act.1’ 

Would  one  of  those  evidences  be  an  imperfect 
recollection  of  the  occurrence  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Making  no  effort  to  conceal  the  act?  A. 
That  is  one  of  the  most  marked. 

Q.  Delivering  themselves  up  to  the  authori¬ 
ties  ?  A.  They  frequently  do  so. 

Q.  Dr.  Jarvis  further  says:  “  These  doctrines 
are  further  sustained  by  French  lawyers  and 
judges.  Ballard,  a  jurist  of  high  character, 
whom  no  one  suspects  of  being  indulgent,  says : 

‘  There  are  some  who  have  suffered  a  perpetual 
loss  of  reason ;  others  for  a  moment,  being 
affected  by  some  great  grief,  surprise  or  other 
cause  of  this  kind.  There  Ls  no  difference  be¬ 
tween  these  two  forms  of  mania  than  that  of 
duration;  and  one  whose  head  is  turned  for 
some  hours  or  some  days  is  as  completely  insane 
during  this  ephemeral  cause  as  one  who  is  mad 
for  many  years.” 

Is  it  not  a  well  recognized  doctrine  that  a 
person  may  be  as  completely  insane  and  irrespon¬ 
sible  when  afflicted  with  this  temporary  insanity 
as  if  insane  for  a  longer  period.  A.  It  is  so, 
sir. 

Q.  “There  is  no  want  of  authorities  to  estab¬ 
lish  the  doctrine  of  instantaneous  insanity.  The 
observations  made  by  writers  of  medical  juris¬ 
prudence  of  the  present  day  leaves  no  doubt  of 
the  existence  of  this  mania,  during  which  men 
who  have  never  manifested  insanity  are  com¬ 
pletely  deprived  of  reason,  and  give  themselves 
up  to  the  most  deplorable  excesses.  ” 

Does  that  comport  with  your  knowledge, 
reading,  and  experience  on  this  subject,  with 
the  qualification  that  you  have  before  you  ?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  Does  change  of  character,  disposition, 
outward  habits  of  person  indicate  a  change  in 
the  mind  and  tendency  to  insanity  ?  A.  They 
are  the  most  frequent  evidences  of  mental  dis¬ 
turbance. 

Q.  Take  a  person  of  nervous  temperament, 
whose  grandfather  had  died  insane,  a  change 
takes  place  in  her  disposition,  her  temper  be¬ 
comes  irritable,  becomes  careless  in  her  dress 
and  habits,  having  been  the  subject  of  great 
grief  for  a  long  period,  and  suffering  from  pain¬ 
ful  dismenorrhoea — take  those  four  causes  unit¬ 
ing  in  a  person  of  nervous  temperament,  and 
you  would  say  that  she  was  a  person  in  whom 
you  might  expect  this  impulsive  insanity,  or 
this  form  of  insanity  to  be  produced?  A.  I 
should,  sir,  or  any  other  form  of  insanity. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  to  one  or  two  ex¬ 
tracts  from  Dr.  Ray.  Please  state  whether  they 
accord  with  your  experience  and  knowledge  on 
the  subject: 

“Yet  sometimes,  especially  on  the  operation 


76 


of  a  powerfully  exciting  Cause,  it  breaks  out 
suddenly  and  terminates  in  a  few  hours.  It 
has  been  called  transitory  mania  or  instan¬ 
taneous  mania.” 

Now  taking  the  evidence  as  you  have  heard  it 
on  the  stand  from  the  witnesses  as  to  the  occur¬ 
rences  at  the  moment  of  this  homicide,  would 
you  say  that  that  was  a  powerfully  exciting 
cause  in  your  opinion  ?  A.  I  should. 

Q.  Again  he  says  in  cases  like  that  of 
Mercer  : 

“When  a  man  destroys  the  seducer  of  his 
wife,  sister,  or  daughter,  we  often  see  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  insane  temperament;  and  the 
effect  has  been  very  much  in  determining  the 
quality  of  the  act.  We  also  know,  as  a  matter 
of  no  very  infrequent  experience,  that  insanity 
may  be  produced  instantaneously  by  a  profound 
moral  shock.  If  a  person  might  be  deprived  of 
his  senses  on  a  piece  of  good  news,  or  of  the 
death  of  one  very  near  and  dear,  is  it  strange 
such  results  would  follow  what  is  calculated 
above  all  others  to  stir  the  soul  to  its  inmost 
depths  ?  What  the  mental  condition  actually 
is  must  be  determined  by  evidence  in  the  case, 
and  any  doubt  there  may  be  we  may  be  quite 
sure,  will  be  given  in  favor  of  the  accused.” 

The  announcement  of  some  sudden,  great, 
and  good  fortune  is  conceded  by  the  authorities 
as  being  a  cause  for  producing  insanity  ?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  That  is  the  doctrine  of  the  books  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  would  consider  news  of  great  mis¬ 
fortune  a  more  prolific  cause  than  news  of  good 
fortune  ?  A.  I  should. 

Q.  One  form  of  this  affliction  is  that  of  the 
insane  impulse  appearing  suddenly,  without 
previous  premonition,  and  disappearing  with 
equal  rapidity.  The  existence  of  the  insane 
impulse  and  instantaneous  mania  is  supported 
by  the  lessons  of  pathological  psychology  as 
by  the  actual  case.  The  rapid  and  tumultuous 
excess  of  feelings  that  rush  into  the  mind,  the 
reflective  powers  are  paralized,  and  the  move¬ 
ments  are  simply  the  result  of  automatic  im¬ 
pulse,  with  which  the  reason  has  as  little  to  do 
as  the  motives  of  a  new  bom  infant.” 

I  read  these  from  Dr.  Kay;  and  what  do  you 
say  as  to  the  doctor  there  ?  A.  I  believe  that 
is  sound  doctrine. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  recognized  fact  that  insane  per¬ 
sons  may  commit  acts  of  which  they  are  fully 
conscious  and  yet  utterly  unable  to  resist  ?  A. 
It  is. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Dr.  Woodward,  Superin¬ 
tendent  of  the  Massachusetts  Asylum  ?  A.  By 
reputation,  not  personally. 

Q.  I  will  read  what  he  6ays  here,  and  then 
ask  you  if  you  can,  in  your  experience,  add  any¬ 
thing  to  the  exposition  he  has  made: 

“Of  all  cases  that  have  come  to  my  knowl¬ 
edge — and  I  have  examined  the  subject  for  years 
— I  have  known  but  a  single  instance  in  which 
an  individual  arraigned  tor  murder  and  found 
not  guilty,  by  reason  of  insanity,  has  not  after¬ 
wards  shown  unequivocal  symptoms  of  insanity 
in  hospitals  where  he  has  been  confined  ;  and  I 
regret  to  say  that  many  have  been  executed  who 
have  shown  as  clear  evidences  of  insanity  as  any 
of  these.” 


In  your  reading  and  expe'flen'de  have  yoa 
known  a  case  where  the  plea  of  insanity 
been  sustained  by  medical  testimony,  in  wi 
pre-disposing  causes  have  existed  that  the  i 
sequent  history  of  the  patient  did  not  just 

Mr.  BRITTON.— I  don’t  like  to  have 
question  go  in  without  objection,  at  least 

Mr.  MORRIS. — I  withdraw  it,  then. 

Q.  I  will  read  one  more  extract  from 
same  author  : 

“Mania,  characterized  as  in  these  cases 
sudden  occurrences  of  a  brief  duration, 
lately  been  spoken  of  as  if  destitute  of  a  pri 
foundation  in  fact.  But  there  is  no  substai 
reason  for  doubt.  I  am  not  aware  of  a  si 
writer  on  insanity  of  any  mark  during  the 
forty  or  fifty  years  who  has  not  recognizee 
existence.  Most  of  them  have  recorded  c 
occurring  within  their  own  observation.  M 
cases  may  be  found  in  journals  devoted  wl 
to  psychological  medicine.  Dr.  Jarvis,  who 
had  occasion  recently  to  examine  the  sub 
states  that  he  found  from  seventy-five  tc 
hundred  cases  on  record.  ‘  Indeed,  ’  says  h< 
is  questionable  if  any  other  phase  of  insf 
has  been  more  satisfactorily  illustrated 
this.’” 

Is  there  any  more  doubt  about  this  fon 
insanity  than  about  any  other  form  ?  A.  I; 
is  not. 

Q.  Upon  another  point  I  will  call  your  ai 
tiou  to  a  statement  in  Beauford  : 

*  ‘  Of  the  sympathetic  connection  existin  i 
tween  the  brain  and  uterus  is  plainly  see  l 
the  most  casual  observer.  Many  women 
completely  prostrated  while  menstruating  I 
suffer  intensely  in  the  head.  ” 

Does  that  accord  with  your  experience  ! 
It  does. 

“  Q.  If  we  consider  insanity  makes  its  api 
ance  at  the  time  of  puberty  ;  that  this  peril 
more  dangerous  to  girls  than  to  boys;* 
more  girls  between  the  age6  of  twelve* 
eighteen  become  insane  than  boys ;  the « 
should  expect  to  find  every  girl  at  this  tim  a 
peculiarly  susceptible  nervous  irritation.  1 « 
fore,  in  one  who  inherits  from  her  anc«st<  I 
unstable  organization,  two  conditions  exis  a 
favorable  for  the  production  of  her  mentjli 
order.  These  may  be  of  themselves  suf  *• 
to  originate  it." 

Does  that  agree  with  your  experience  I 
this  disease  and  its  cause  ?  A.  It  does.  i 

Q.  Delirium  is  no  longer  considered  to  ■ 
only  kind  of  insanity  ?  A.  It  is  not, 

Q.  Insanity  exists  in  many  cases  withe  * 
lirium?  A.  It  does. 

Q.  Let  me  call  your  attention  to  anothe  *n 
graph  of  Beauford.  Speaking  of  this  fci  a 
insanity,  I  trust  the  Court  will  be  a  little  ]® 
w'ith  me,  and  the  jurors— I  know  they  vjj 
cause  it  may  be  afterwards  said  in  certaii*? 
ters  that  the  idea  of  temporary  inaaM 
absurd — not  by  this  prosecution,  but  o>» 
In  speaking  of  this  subject  he  says  : 

‘  ‘  There  is  another  variety  of  insan  ■  ® 
rather  another  class  of  the  insane  patieS  ■- 
whom  no  delusions  are  to  be  discover*  W 
whose  insanity  is  manifested  in  what  tfjjj 
rather  than  in  what  they  say.  It  is  imls', 


77 


ji  instinctive  insanity,  the  victims  of  which, 
ner  impulse  and  instinct,  do  something,  com- 
n  some  act  of  violence,  for  which,  being 
nne,  they  are  not  to  be  held  liable,  but  for 
vljh,  were  they  sane,  they  would  be  respon- 

ife.” 

o  you  recollect  of  this  author  advancing  that 
lcrine?  A.  Ido. 

.  Do  you  think  it  is  sound  doctrine  ?  A.  I 

it 

he  COURT. — You  mean  to  say  it  is  accepted 
is.iuch  in  the  profession?  A.  Yes,  sir;  by 
h  e  who  have  made  it  a  study. 

That  such  cases  exist,  and  are  not  merely 
n  nted  by  doctors  as  an  excuse  for  crime,  is 
niciently  proven.  Indeed,  there  can  be  no 
kbt  about  the  existence  of  insanity  marked 
>yucli  impulses.  My  present  purpose  is  to 
o  ider  the  impulsive  acts  of  the  insane,  espe- 
■if  y  of  those  whose  insanity  not  being  marked 
>y  elusion  is  chiefly  indicated  by  the  act  itself. 
Cl  act,  however,  is  plainly  the  out-come  of 
oi;  idea  present  for  the  moment  in  the  mind, 
>u  present  possibly  only  for  the  moment,  and 
hi  so  obliterated  that  the  individual  after¬ 
rats  has  lost  all  trace  of  it. 

*  Do  you  recollect  this  authority  having 
d  need  that  doctrine  ?  A.  I  do. 

1  Do  you  consider  this  sound  doctrine  ?  A. 

!  cj1 

*  Is  Dr.  Maundsley  considered  good  author- 
tv  A.  He  is. 

1  He  is  an  English  writer  ?  A.  He  is. 
i  He  has  not  taken  quite  as  advanced  ground 
in  fls  subject  as  some  other  authorities  ?  A. 
It  as  not  had  the  practical  experience  in  the 
asof  the  insane  that  some  other  gentlemen 
ia' 

<  Speaking  on  this  subject  he  says  that  a 
iei  in  under  such  an  attack  :  “  It  is  no  longer 
n  lea  the  relations  of  which  the  mind  can 
oi  stnplate,  but  a  violent  impulse  into  which 
lie,  line!  is  absorbed  and  irresistibly  utters  itself 
ijption.”  And  Dr.  Beauford  says:  “This 
ei;  done,  the  feeling  and  idea  having  ex- 
ei  ed  themselves  in  action,  may  cease  for  a 
ji  until  the  morbid  process  is  enacted  over 
g£  in  the  br.iin.”  Do  you  find  anything 
oe,  Doctor,  from  which  you  dissent?  A.  No. 

(f  Says  Dr.  Ray  :  “It  would  be  no  greater 
it  to  deny  the  existence  of  consumption  be- 
u  its  approaches  have  not  been  noticed, 
ia  to  deny  insanity  because  its  symptoms 
ai  not  been  observed.  ”  You  can  speak  from 
ov  experience  upon  that  ?  A.  I  can. 

C  Will  you  state,  if  you  please,  a  condition 
ia  you  would  think  favorable,  in  which  you 
'oi  1  expect  the  development  of  this  form  of 
isity  ?  In  that  I  desire  you  to  speak  of  the 
ui  of  the  person,  admitting  a  predisposing 
ni,  if  you  were  asked  to  state  in  what  sort  of  a 
ey  you  would  expect  manifestations  of  this 
M  A.  I  should  suppose  that  person  in- 
ei'iQg  a  jiredisposition  to  insanity,  those 
hi1!  general  health  is  impaired  by  any  cause, 
io  who  are  naturally  nervous  and  excitable, 
ioi,  who  have  been  subjected  to  any  great 
■ia  tf  their  feelings  in  any  way  to  cause  them 
)  c  ell  much  on  the  subject,  to  regret  it  and 
e  l  ake  nights  and  dream  over  it.  and  then 


the  application  of  a  great  and  sudden  excite¬ 
ment  or  some  strong  emotion — I  should  suppose 
such  persons,  under  such  circumstances,  would 
be  very  likely  to  lose  their  reason. 

Q.  And  added  to  that  at  the  time  of  this  ex¬ 
citing  cause,  painful  dismenorrhcea — that  would 
greatly  increase  the  probability  of  it  ?  A.  I 
think  it  would. 

Q.  You  have  heard  some  of  the  testimony  in 
the  case,  and  from  what  you  have  heard,  and 
the  examination_jTou  have  made,  do  you  think 
the  prisoner  in  this  case  answers  the  descrip¬ 
tion  ?  A.  Very  fully. 

Q.  Is  Dr.  Pritchard  regarded  as  high  author¬ 
ity  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Speaking  of  this  form  :  “In  this  disorder 
the  will  is  occasionally  under  an  impulse  which 
suddenly  drives  the  person  afflicted  to  the  per¬ 
petration  of  acts  of  the  most  revolting  kind.” 
Is  there  anything  in  that  from  which  you  dis¬ 
sent  ?  A.  There  is  not. 

Q.  Dr.  Gray.  Do  you  know  him  by  reputa¬ 
tion  ?  A.  I  do. 

Q.  In  speaking  of  this  form  of  insanity,  page 
15,  he  says  :  “The  most  distinguished  authors, 
both  home  and  abroad,  have  recognized  this 
form  of  mental  unsoundness  as  having  exist¬ 
ence  independent  of  delusion.  The  cases  on 
record  are  so  numerous  the  only  difficulty  is  the 
selection.”  As  to  the  fact  of  the  existence  of 
this  disorder,  do  you  agree  with  that?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  Is  Dr.  Bucknell  regarded  as  high  author¬ 
ity  ?  A.  Very  high  authority. 

Q.  He  maintains  the  same  doctrine  ?  A.  He 
does. 

Q.  Esquirol  formerly  doubted  the  doctrine  ? 
A.  He  did,  I  think. 

Q.  He  fully  recognizes  it  now  ?  A.  He  does, 
now. 

Q.  In  speaking  of  this  form  he  says  :  ‘  ‘  The 
patient  is  drawn  from  his  accustomed  courses 
to  the  commission  of  acts  to  which  reason  nor 
sentiment  determine,  which  conscience  rebukes, 
and  which  the  will  has  no  power  to  restrain — 
acts  that  are  involuntary,  instinctive  and  irre¬ 
sistible.  This  is  mania  without  delusion,  or 
instinctive  monomania.  ”  Do  you  assent  to  that 
doctrine?  A.  I  do. 

Q.  The  action  of  a  person  under  this  form  of 
insanity  would  you  consider  as  purely  auto¬ 
matic,  without  the  guidance  of  the  will  at  all  ? 
A.  Entirely  so. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  Dr.  Taylor  is  a 
writer  on  medical  jurisprudence  ?  A.  General 
medical  jurisprudence. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  he  sustains 
the  doctrine  of  impulsive  or  paroxysmal 
mania  ?  A.  I  am  not  familiar  with  Dr.  Taylor 
on  this  branch. 

Q.  I  will  read  from  a  paragraph:  “Homi¬ 
cidal  mania,  or  monomania,  is  commonly  de¬ 
fined  to  be  a  state  of  partial  insanity,  accom¬ 
panied  by  an  impulse  to  the  perpetration  of 
murder ;  hence  it  is  sometimes  called  ‘  ‘  im¬ 
pulsive,  ’  or  ‘  paroxysmal  insanity. '  There  may 
or  may  not  be  evidence  of  intellectual  aberra¬ 
tion,  but  the  main  feature  of  the  disorder  is  the 
existence  of  a  destructive  impulse,  which,  like  a 
delusion,  cannot  be  controlled  by  the  patient. ” 


That  agrees  with  the  other  authorities?  A.  I 
think  it  does. 

Q.  He  further  says  on  this  subject : 

“  The  impulse  to  kill  is  sudden,  instinctive, 
and  uncontrollable.  It  is  this  form  which  has 
been  called  impulsive  insanity,  which  has  given 
rise  to  so  much  contention  on  trials  for  murder, 
where  insanity  is  set  up  as  a  defense.  It  is  well 
to  consider  the  subject  in  its  legal  aspect.  It  is 
said  that  on  particular  occasions  men  are  seized 
with  an  irresistible  impulse  to  kill,  and  under 
such  impulse  may  commit  acts  that  otherwise 
would  be  atrociously  criminal.  It  would  be  ab¬ 
surd  to  deny  that  such  impulses  may  occur,  or 
the  fact  that  they  have  occurred  and  have  been 
acted  on.  ” 

That  is  of  the  same  tenor,  advancing  the 
same  general  doctrines  ?  A.  The  same  general 
doctrine  is  implied  ;  sudden  impulse  frequently 
arises  among  the  insane,  and  not  unfrequently 
in  those  who  have  been  recognized  by  the  com¬ 
munity  as  insane  before  the  occurrence  of  the 
act 

Q.  I  will  ask  the  question  in  a  little  different 
form  from  what  I  have  yet ;  I  asked  you  to  de¬ 
scribe  a  person  such  as  you  would  expect  to  be 
subject  to  this  form  of  attack  ;  you  described  the 
person  and  then  stated  the  prisoner  answered 
the  description.  Now,  doctor,  from  the  evi¬ 
dence  you  have  heard  in  the  case  and  the  ex¬ 
amination  you  have  made,  taking  all  into  con¬ 
sideration — the  whole  history  of  the  case,  what, 
in  your  opinion,  do  you  say  was  the  condition 
of  her  mind  at  the  precise  time  of  this  homicide  ? 
A.  I  have  no  doubt  that  she  was  insane. 

Q.  Irresponsible  ?  A.  Irresponsible  ;  I  be¬ 
lieve  the  act  was  from  the  result  of  a  sudden 
impulse,  the  occurrence  of  which  she  did  not 
foresee  and  which  she  was  not  able  to  restrain  ; 
I  believe  she  had  no  knowledge  of  what  she  was 
doing  at  the  time  the  shot  occurred. 

Cross-examination. 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  what  you  deem  to  be  a 
concise  definition  of  insanity  ?  A.  It  is  very 
difficult. 

Q.  I  am  aware  it  is  very  difficult,  but  I  know 
you  have  made  it  a  study,  and  I  thought  you 
might,  perhaps,  be  able  io  approximate  to  it ; 
if  it  cannot  be  done  in  a  moment,  I  will  wait. 
A.  It  is  a  disease  of  the  brain,  affecting  the 
mind  ;  or  manifestation  of  disease  of  the  brain, 
characterized  by  derangement  of  one  or  more 
faculties  of  the  mind. 

Q-  Your  definition  covers  the  point  I  wished  ; 
it  is  recognized  by  authorities,  as  it  is  by  your¬ 
self,  that  it  is  a  disease  of  the  brain,  particu¬ 
larly  that  phase  of  it  known  as  ‘  ‘  mania  ?  ”  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  It  is  divided  by  writers  and  authorities 
into  various  subdivisions,  one  of  which  is 
mania?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  it  is  that  more  especially  which  yon 
have  been  testifying  to,  as  distinguished  trom 
dementia  ?  A.  That  is  the  general  term. 

Q.  Bucknell  and  Ray,  and  most  of  those 
authorities,  agree  with  you  that  it  is  a  disease 
of  the  brain,  affecting  the  mind  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  that  disease  is  not  instantaneously 


created  ,  in  your  judgment,  any  more  thai 
other  physical  disease  ?  A.  It  is  not. 

Q.  It  has  an  incubation  before  it  dev 
itself?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  I  read  from  Dr.  Ray,  and  I  propose  t 
y»u  if  that  embodies  your  views  upon  that 
ject  : 

“Notwithstanding  the  air  of  mystery  vi 
ignorance  and  misrepresentation  have  th 
around  this  disease,  it  cannot  be  said  to  Pr« 
anything  strange  or  peculiar,  nor  are  the 
cussions  in  it  involved  in  any  obscurity 
posed  to  attend  them  !  It  is  just  as  mucl 
no  more  an  event  of  special  providence  as  i 
diseases  ;  it  follows  the  same  course  of  ini 
tion,  development,  and  termination,  in  co 
death,  as  other  diseases,  sometimes  lying  | 
rnant  for  months  or  even  years  ;  often  obw 
from  others  and  unsuspected  by  the  pe 
himself  ;  at  others  suddenly  breaking  out, 
little  premonition  of  its  approach,  and  i 
after  being  repeatedly  warded  off  by  precan 
and  remedies,  finally  establishing  itself  ii 
clearest  forms.  ” 

It  has  a  regular  progress  as  other  dis« 
do?  A.  Very  generally. 

Q.  This  branch  of  disease  called  Mania 
sitoria  is  no  exception  to  the  rule?  A.  I  i 
not. 

Q.  You  don’t  recognize,  if  I  understandi 
aright,  the  doctrine  that  persons  can  be  sail 
their  lives  and  then  become  suddenly  ini 
and  in  a  few  moments,  five  or  ten  minute 
halt  an  horn-,  be  entirely  sane  again  ?  A.  I 
not  say  that. 

Q.  I  know  you  did  not;  but  I  want  to  '1 
it  out  more  clearly.  You  don’t  mean  ) 
understood  any  such  way  as  that  Ancd 
insanity  is  a  predisposing  cause  ?  A.  Yes.  I 

Q.  You  don't  consider  that  that  fact  i 
would  be  evidence  of  insanity  in  a  person  Ii 
is  charged  with  having  committed  a  crime:! 
By  no  means. 

Q.  Coupled  with  that  fact  there  rnusl 
other  indications  before  the  crime  ?  A.  I  sill 
expect  to  find  them. 

Q.  And  you  would  expect  to  find  them  i 
time  anterior  to  the  actual  commission  oi 
crime  charged?  A.  Yes;  might  be  but  «■ 
short  time. 

Q.  Some  days?  A.  Not  necessarily. 

Q.  More  than  one  day  ?  Not  neecstfl 
more  than  a  single  day. 

Q.  Would  you  consider  that  fact  alone  tt 
person  charged  with  a  crirn  :  of  this  natural 
same  day  was  paler  than  usual,  and  at  the  B 
time  had  a  wilder  expression  of  the  eye  * 
usual,  and  was  more  silent  than  usual  -  «tl 
you  consider  these  indications  as  suffi® 
coupled  with  the  fact  that  some  ancestor  1 
grandfather,  if  you  please — bad  been  insai  I 
show  insanity  on  the  part  of  the  person  ! 
No,  sir.  I  should  only  consider  these  indica* 
of  a  great  nervous  disturbance. 

Q.  They  might  arise  from  that  and  not  >1 
any  insanity  ?  A.  They  might. 

Q.  Suppose  this  person  had  con  ten)  plat*  i 
that  very  time  when  these  indications  devel* 
themselves,  the  purpose  of  shooting  ano« 
and  had  in  his  or  her  possession  on  that  i 


79 


.o  a  weapon  for  that  purpose,  and  that  person 
idd  be  of  a  nervous  organization — a  woman 
-i.ght  it  not  produce  just  such  indications  as 
at;?  A.  On  the  contrary;  it  would  seem  to 
ueshat  that  person  who  had  planned,  calmly 
u:  determinedly,  to  shoot,  that  that  person 
•c  d  remain  calm,  collected,  and  determined. 

(  Would  not  that  be  indicated  by  paleness 
f  e  face  ?  A.  Not  necessarily, 
i  Might  it  not  possibly?  A.  Possibly. 

(  Don’t  you  know  some  persons  in  your  ex- 
e:  mce  who,  when  excited  interiorly,  are  calm 
xt'iorly,  and  are  merely  pale  in  the  face  ?  A. 
’Ll  condition,  under  such  circumstances,  is 
loSpreceded  by  evidence  of  nervous  disturb- 
n ,  The  excitement  rises  as  suddenly  as  the 
tndsive  act, 

|  Then  you  don’t  think  that  a  person  who 
a  contemplating  the  crime  is  very  excited 
vi1  has  that  pallor  of  face?  A.  Not  neces- 

uy- 

i  Might  one  be  ?  A.  Possibly, 
i  Would  it  not  be  more  likely  for  a  person 
if  nervous  temperament  than  for  a  person  of 
i  mguine  temperament  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

*  In  answer  to  a  question  from  counsel  on 
bother  side,  you  have  stated  that  the  prisoner 
mi  rial  here,  answering  the  condition  such  as 
o  have  described,  and  from  the  examination 
if  ,e  facts  and  circumstances  of  this  case,  that 
•o|was  of  the  opinion  at  the  time  of  the  com- 
aiion  of  this  act,  this  prisoner  was  insane, 
fl  >  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  testi- 
ncy  which  you  have  heard  given  in  the  case 
>y  rat  prisoner  on  the  stand  was  true  ?  A.  I 
n  juite  willing  to  leave  out  of  the  considera- 
io  of  the  case  entirely  all  testimony  as  given 
jyierself,  and  my  opinions  would  be  the  same. 

1  Based  on  what?  A.  On  other  testimony, 
m  le  assumption  that  it  is  true. 

What  other  testimony  ?  A.  Of  the  other 
si  esses. 

s,1  What  testimony  of  other  witnesses?  A. 
king  on  her  condition  that  forenoon,  and 
kchange  in  her  disposition,  character,  acts, 
ta"ts,  for  weeks  and  months  before. 

‘  Do  you  mean  to  be  understood  as  saying 
hi  the  fact  that  the  prisoner  grew  thinner  in 
le,;,  changed  her  habits,  became  careless  of 
Mi,  and  on  that  morning  looked  paler  and 
ri'er  in  the  eyes — that  these  facts  are  suffi- 
it  -  to  satisfy  your  mind,  independent  of  this 
c  that  the  prisoner  was  insane  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Then  what  are  the  other  facts  upon  which 
v  base  that  conclusion  as  testified  to  by  other 
>'i  esses  ?  A.  The  fact  of  her  conduct  imme- 
lii  ly  before  and  soon  after  the  shooting. 

|  The  facts  as  testified  to  by  other  witnesses? 
U  have  them  distinctly  in  my  mind  as  given. 

|  What  is  that  testimony  to  which  you  refer 
s  ven  by  other  witnesses?  A.  The  fact  of 
ie  igitation,  her  willingness  to  surrender  her- 
el  her  making  no  effort  to  escape,  are  all  facts 
ci  sually  expect  to  find. 

Then  is  it  true  in  your  judgment,  because 
®  person  who  has  shot  another  is  agitated 
ft  the  killing,  that  is  necessary  to  go  to  make 
The  element  of  insanity?  A.  Not  necessa- 

1  rr 

The  tact  that  the  prisoner,  three  hours 


afterwards,  or  in  fact  at  any  time,  gave  herself 
up,  is  that  necessarily  an  element  of  insanity? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  known  many  instances  where 
persons  gave  themselves  up  after  commission  of 
crime  that  were  sane  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q  Can  you  state  any  other  circumstance  tes- 
tific  l  to  by  the  witnesses,  from  which  you  form 
your  judgment  in  that  respect?  A.  I  form  my 
opinion  by  including  all  the  material  facts  as 
stated  by  the  witnesses. 

Q.  Are  there  any  other  facts  than  those  which 
you  now  state?  A.  Not  that  I  can  enumerate. 

Q.  To  what  extent  have  you  examined  the 
prisoner  since  the  transaction  ?  A.  I  have  had 
two  interviews  with  her.  One  during  her  con¬ 
finement  in  jail.  I  had  one  nearly  an  hour  at 
one  time. 

Q.  Independent  of  the  statements  she  made 
to  you  connected  with  the  transaction  and  the 
circumstance  that  led  to  it,  do  you  find  any 
present  indications  of  insanity  ?  A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  material  element  in  the  conclu¬ 
sion  to  which  you  arrive  in  that  respect  that  she 
wras  unconscious  of  the  act  at  the  time  it  was 
committed,  and  did  not  remember  it  afterwards  ? 
A.  That  testimony  strengthens  my  convictions 
that  she  was,  at  the  time  of  the  shooting,  in¬ 
sane. 

Q.  Suppose  the  fact  to  be  that  she,  immedi¬ 
ately  after  the  shooting,  called  the  attention  of 
the  first  person  that  came  there  to  the  fact  that 
the  man  killed  lay  at  the  bottom  of  the  stairs, 
would  that  be  an  indication  or  not  to  you  that 
she  was  conscious  at  the  time  ?  A.  That  would 
be  of  no  importance,  the  fact  being  so. 

Q.  Suppose  within  a  few  minutes  afterwards 
she  said  she  had  killed  him,  and  then  gave  her¬ 
self  up,  and  gave  a  motive  for  killing  him, 
would  that  have  any  influence  on  your  judg¬ 
ment  as  to  whether  she  was  insane?  A.  It 
would  not.  She  might  be  insane  and  still  make 
these  statements. 

Q.  Would  it  have  any  influence  on  your  judg¬ 
ment  as  to  whether  she  knew  at  the  time  she 
killed  him  ?  A.  Under  the  present  circum¬ 
stances  I  think  that  is  an  important  element  in 
the  testimony. 

Q.  And  if  she  declared  that  fact,  it  would 
tend  to  show  to  your  mind  that  she  did  know 
at  the  time  she  killed  him.  If  she  declared  the 
fact  soon  after,  that  she  did,  and  gave  the  reason 
why — a  rational  reason  for  it— and  that  she 
knew  she  killed  him  at  the  time  she  did  it.  A. 
It  does  not  necessarily  follow. 

Q.  Would  it  not  be  probable?  A.  I  think  it 
would  not. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  if  a  per¬ 
son  kills  another,  and  within  a  few  minutes 
afterwards  states  the  fact  that  she  did  kill  that 
other,  and  states  a  rational  reason  for  such  kill¬ 
ing,  that  that,  is  no  evidence  that  she  knew  it  at 
the  time  ?  A.  It  might  and  it  might  not  be. 

Q.  Well,  add  to  that  the  fact  that  two  or  three 
hours  afterwards  she  goas  to  a  station-house  and 
delivers  herself  up  without  anj'  suggestion  from 
any  other  person  that  she  ought  to  give  herself 
up,  would  not  that  be  a  circumstance  tending  to 
show  that  she  was  conscious  at  that  time  of  the 
killing?  A.  Not  necessarily. 


80 


Q.  What  would  it  probably  indicate  ?  A.  She 
might  feel  it  was  just  to  do  so. 

Q.  Yes;  kbut  my  question  is — suppose  she 
claimed  in  the  first  instance  that  she  did  not  know 
that  she  killed  the  person  at  the  time,  and  had  no 
knowledge  of  the  killing,  claims  to  have  been  in¬ 
sane  at  the  time,  no  one  tells  her  from  that  time 
down  to  the  time  she  goes  to  the  station-house 
that  she  has  killed  any  body,  and  no  one  tells 
her  she  ought  to  go  to  the  station-house,  or  give 
any  reason  why,  and  of  her  own  volition  6he 
goes  to  the  station-house  and  gives  herself  up 
as  a  criminal,  would  not  that  indicate  to  your 
mind  that  she  was  conscious  that  she  had  com¬ 
mitted  the  crime  or  had  killed  the  person  ?  A. 
I  think  it  would  be  the  most  natural  thing  pos¬ 
sible  for  her  to  do. 

Q.  But  would  not  that  indicate  that  when  she 
did  deliver  herself  up  she  knew  she  had  killed 
somebody  ?  A.  By  no  means. 

Q.  By  what  operation  of  mind,  insane  or  sane, 
would  a  woman  be  induced  to  give  herself  up  to 
the  authorities?  A.  That  would  depend  on  her 
nature.  You  might  have  one  nature  and  I  an¬ 
other. 

Q.  Do  the  insane  have  motives  ?  A.  Cer¬ 
tainly. 

Q.  Do  those  who  commit  crimes  under  mania 
transitoria  have  motives  ?  No,  sir. 

Q.  Now  suppose  this  crime  was  committed 
under  an  insane  impulse  and  there  is  no  con¬ 
sciousness  of  the  fact  at  that  time,  and  no  infor¬ 
mation  has  been  conveyed — nothing  said  in  the 
intermediate  time  to  the  prisoner  about  deliver¬ 
ing  herself  up,  and  she  delivers  herstlf  up  to  the 
authorities,  by  what  operation  of  mind  could 
that  follow  except  the  consciousness  of  having 
committed  the  act — what  inducement  could 
there  be  to  such  a  surrender  except  the  con¬ 
sciousness  of  the  act.  A.  If  she  had  not  killed 
him  she  certainly  would  not  surrender  herself 
for  killing. 

Q.  If  she  did  not  recollect  she  had,  and  no 
one  told  her,  be  kind  enough  to  suggest  what 
would  induce  her  to  go  to  the  station  house? 
A.  She  would  certainly  know  she  had  killed 
the  man. 

Q.  That’s  the  point  1  want  to  get  at.  She 
would  not  have  gone  to  the  station  house  unless 
she  knew  she  had  killed  the  man?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Suppose,  when  she  arrived  at  the  station 
house,  she  told  the  transaction  in  detail,  stating 
she  had  killed  him,  and  the  motive  she  had  for 
killing  him,  and  stated  reasons  which  were  in 
effect  indignities  upon  her,  and  then  added  that 
threats  had  been  made  to  her,  and  she  killed 
him  for  satisfaction  ? 

Objected  to.  There  is  no  such  evidence  in  the 
case. 

The  COUBT. — Is  that  evidence  in  the  case? 

Mr.  BRITTON. — It  is  not,  but  the  counsel 
has  claimed  the  right  to  put  hypothetical  ques¬ 
tions. 

Mr.  MORRIS.  —  I  claimed  a  hypothetical  case 
that  was  based  on  evidence  in  the  case. 

Mr.  BRITTON.— This  is  a  cress-examina¬ 
tion,  and  I  intend  to  show  precisely  that  thing. 

Mr.  MORRIS.  I  object  to  the  question,  as  it 
assumes  a  fact  that  has  not  been  testified  to  in 
the  case  at  all,  and  that  counsel  does  not  pre¬ 


tend  has  been  proven.  The  hypothetical  hi 
tions  I  put  were  strictly  based  on  questic 

the  case. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  claim  that  it  was  no  u 
counsel  stated  that  that  would  be  a  questic 
the  jury. 

Mr.  MORRIS.— Well,  we  both  claim  1 
there  is  no  evidence  on  this  point ;  so  we  | 
for  once — for  the  first  time. 

The  COURT. — I  don’t  think  the  quest  , 
based  ou  facts  in  evidence. 

Mr.  BRITTON.— Then  I  shall  be  oblig 
keep  this  witness  here  until  the  case  is  c  e 
when  we  can  get  the  testimony. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — We  won’t  object  to  tha 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  waive  this  question 
reserve  the  right  to  put  it  afterwards. 

Q.  Now,  suppose  a  person,  receiving  a  a 
indignity  at  the  hands  of  another,  which  r  J 
in  her  killing  the  person  thus  offering  tl  j] 
dignity,  how  would  you  determine,  by  ] 
symptoms  or  facts  would  you  determine  wli 
the  person  committing  the  act  wras  insa 
the  time,  or  whether  it  was  the  result  of  pe  o 
inciting  anger  and  revenge.  A.  I  should) 
into  account  the  entire  history  of  the  pe  j 
her  family7  history7,  hereditary  tendencies  t 
orders  of  any  kind,  and  should  consider 
whole  history  of  her  general  health  and  vm 
experiences  to  which  she  might  have  been 
jected  ;  then  the  evidence  touching  the  c  J 
tion  of  the  party  accused  before  the  commi  a 
of  the  act,  and  the  evidence  as  given  beM 
on  her  condition  subsequent  to  the  act,  thebJ 
ior  of  the  accused.  I  think  it  w7ould  iu  lii 
everything. 

Q.  Assuming  it  to  be  possible  that  the  k  n| 
may  have  been  the  result  of  provocation  oi 
from  a  motive  of  revenge  and  satisfaction.  ii 
might  be  denominated,  what  different  sta  0 
facts  would  suggest  themselves  to  your  :U 
than  as  though  it  were  done  under  an  impui  o 
insanity?  A.  If  it  were  done  for  revenf  ; 
would  not  expect  to  discover  any  meutalii 
turbances  preceding  the  act.  I  should  sufis 
the  party7  w7ould  have  taken  a  less  public  p* 
and  would  attempt  to  seek  his  safety7  by  fla 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  frequent  occurrence  that  a 
sons  who  have  killed  others,  not  insane,  It 
not  sought  flight?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  it  not  quite  a  common  thing  whenti 
sons  have  killed  others  through  a  great  pas»i 
caused  by7  any7  adequate  motive,  that  they  (J 
not  given  themselves  up — shooting  in  h 
streets  and  other  public  places?  Do  you  'i 
sider  shooting  in  public  places  are  evident* 
insanity  in  themselves  ?  A.  Not  of  tliemsejS 

Q.  Suppose  a  case  of  this  kind  :  Here 
young  girl,  active,  and  more  than  usually  i- 
ligent,  plump,  robust  and  in  good  health 
say7  between  fifteen  and  sixteen  years  of  i 
she  is  seduced  by  her  employer,  who  is  it 
years  of  age  or  upward  ;  and  suppose  that  d 
inal  intercourse  continues  a  year  or  two, I 
continuing  pleasant,  good-natured  and  gj 
as  usual ;  and  suppose  that  then  it  comes  tit 
ears  of  her  father — the  rumor  of  this  intunajj 
and  her  father  gently  and  quietly  suggest 
her  this  rumor  and  asks  her  about  it :  slio 
plies  indignantly  that  she  is  able  to  take  cat 


81 


If,  and  refuses  to  converse  on  the  subject ; 
subsequently,  and  within  a  few  days, 

:  her  father’s  house  and  looks  out  for  her- 
soon  afterwards,  continuing  this  inter- 
fe  as  I  have  described  it,  she  marries  a 
;  man,  and  during  the  courtship  of  two 
:-ee  months  she  continues  as  before  this 
:ial  intimacy,  and  then  she  marries  this 
)  man,  and  even  after  that  continues  the 
sial  intimacy  with  this  same  man,  renew- 
within  a  month  or  two  and  continuing  it 
'  and  a  half  longer,  and  during  that  period 
cinge  has  occurred  except  in  health  and 
3  and  assuming  at  the  same  time  she  is 
i't  to.  one  or  more  diseases  of  women,  as 
<se  may  be,  badly  so,  and  that  in  her  mens- 
ueriods  she  suffers  much,  and  during  this 
i,  down  to  the  day  the  killing  occurs,  there 
3  special  indication  of  mark  or  note  of 
: sanity,  and  that  on  the  day  of  the  killing 
rson  who  thus  seduces  her  calls  her  a 
>  a  prostitute,  and  accuses  her  of  being 
flier  men,  and  she  thereupon  shoots  him 
i  pistol  with  which  she  had  provided  her- 
i  the  morning.  Now,  on  that  state  of  facts, 
il  with  the  additional  tact  that  her  grand- 
e  was  deemed  to  be  insane,  would  you 
spr  this  person  insane  of  whom  I  have 
Johese  sujspositions  ?  A.  Not  necessarily, 
i  uppose  the  fact  to  be  developed  that  this 
owho  did  the  killing  had  a  clear  motive, 
cht  in  her  mind  to  create  feelings  of  re- 
-would  that  have  any  influence  on  your 
;rnt  upon  the  question  as  to  whether  or 
it  at  the  time  of  the  killing,  she  was  in- 
id  would  not  that  show  it  ?  A.  No,  sir. 
it  be  true  that  a  person  kills  another 
nnotive  is  developed  ;  and  if  it  be  true  that 
k  person,  under  similar  circumstances, 
either  and  a  motive  is  developed — say  of 
ni,  passion  or  hatred — would  you.  under 
st  e  circumstances,  consider  that  had  no 
ir,  on  the  question  as  to  whether  the  per- 
w,  insane?  A.  It  might  influence  me  to 
i  dent  in  my  opinion,  but  of  itself  would 
Sufficient. 

i  ppose,  on  trial  for  murder,  it  had  been 
lo'd  that  the  person  lulling  was  to  receive 
t  person  killed  a  legacy  of  S50,000— if 
iu  tion  of  insanity  was  at  issue  would  not 
h  e  a  hearing  on  your  opinion  ?  A.  It 
Id  ®d  me  to  look  more  carefully.  The 
nt/on  you  have  given  would  be  a  eircum- 
'e  )  influence  my  mind  in  arriving  at  a 
luin. 

Ijvvould  be  because  a  motive  was  shown 
r  t  n  insanity  ?  A.  Yes. 

1  nderstaud  you  to  say  that  in  mania 
ito  i  a  person  has  no  motive.  A.  Might 
k  ht  not,  it  there  is  any  adequate  cause. 

I  f'eak  of  mere  motive  as  distinguished 
equate  cause.  A.  There  might  and 
1 1 ;  he. 

It  as  possible,  in  your  judgment,  under 
-11  instances  of  the  case,  for  the  person 
ut  ig  the  act  not  to  have  been  insane? 
d<  t  think  it  would  hav  ebeen  possible  for 
lrijuer. 

^lout  regard  to  the  killing — throwing 
ue  lling,  and  considering  all  the  antece¬ 


dent  facts  down  to  the  lime  of  the  killing,  it 
was  possible  from  those  facts  alone  to  say  the 
prisoner  was  not  insane  ?  A.  There  was  very 
strong  evidence  of  a  great  degree  of  nervous 
irritability. 

Q.  Independent  of  the  killiug,  are  you  so 
certain  that  you  think  it  could  not  have  been 
otherwise  ?  A.  I  look  upon  the  killing  as  the 
culmination  of  the  nervous  state. 

Q.  Leaving  out  of  your  mind  the  killing  and 
considering  only  the  circumstances  which  led  to 
it,  as  you  have  heard,  would  it  not  be  possible 
to  say  the  person  was  not  insane  at  the  time  of 
the  killing?  A.  Yes  sir,  it  is  possible. 

Q.  Now,  that  being  so.  what  particular 
characteristic  of  the  killing  indicates  that  it 
was  an  insane  act,  as  distinguished  from  the 
fact  that  it  was  done  for  the  purpose  of  revenge  ? 
A.  I  don’t  know  that  it  makes  any  difference. 
The  fact,  the  party  was  killed  is  the  culminating 
act  of  violence  itself  which  is  supposed  to  be  an 
insane  impulse. 

Q.  Then  there  was  no  peculiarity  about  the 
act  of  killing  itself,  which  distinguished  it  from 
an  act  of  passion  ?  A.  Nothing  in  the  act  it¬ 
self. 

Q.  So  that  it  is  only7  the  antecedent  circum¬ 
stances  which  influence  your  mind  on  that 
question  ?  A.  The  antecedent  and  subsequent. 

Q.  Now  I  will  leave  this  branch  of  the  sub¬ 
ject.  Insanity  in  this  form  is  a  modern  dis¬ 
covery;  mania  transitoiia?  A.  Nothing  mod¬ 
ern. 

Q.  It  has  not  generally  been  believed,  among 
the  scientific  world  until  recently?  A.  It  has 
been  recognized  by  all  those  who  have  had  any 
familiarity  with  the  subject  and  opportunities 
for  observation  ? 

Q.  Are  not  there  those  now7  in  the  profession, 
of  high  attthority,  who  dispute  it — take  for  in¬ 
stance  Dr.  Choate  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  His  reputation  is  high  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  he  disputes  the  new 
doctrine  of  mania  transiloria.  A.  Perhaps  in 
one  sense  he  does — the  sense  in  which  I  at¬ 
tempted  to  guard  against  in  the  opening  of  the 
cross-examination. 

Q  There  have  been  medical  writers  who 
claim  that  all  crimes  resulted  from  insanity  ? 
A.  I  should  think  they  were  insane  if  they  did. 

Q.  Is  it  not  the  fact  ?  A.  I  believe  it  is. 

Q.  They  were  eminent,  conspicuous  in  the 
profession  ?  A.  Conspicuous. 

Q.  Recognized  as  eminent  in  every  other  re¬ 
spect.  A.  I  am  not  able  to  say  as  to  their 
standing. 

The  COURT. — Yrou  mean  to  say7  you  don’t 
agree  with  them.  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Some  writers  have  gone  so  far  as  to  claim 
that  a  majority  of  people  have  insanity  in  their 
natures?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Medical  authority  covers  a  pretty  broad 
surface  in  this  subject?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  There  is  a  great  diversity  of  opinion  among 
the  profession  on  this  subject  of  insanity  ?  A. 
Not  very  much  diversity  among  those  who  have 
opportunity7  for  investigating. 

Q.  Would  you  not  likely  feel  that  those  who 
agree  with  you  are  the  ones  w7ho  have  had  the 
best  opportunity  for  knowing  ?  A.  If  I  were 


82 


not  a  very  modest  man  I  might  think  they 
"were. 

Q.  Has  not  this  question  of  mania  iransiloria 
mostly  arisen  in  trials  for  crime  ?  A.  Gener¬ 
ally. 

Q.  In  this  case  of  Cole  at  Albany,  did  you 
read  the  testimony,  the  medical  testimony? 
A.  I  have  no  distinct  recollection. 

Q.  You  remember  the  circumstauce  of  Cole 
killing  Hiscock  for  the  seduction  of  his  wife  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  never  read  the  facts  sufficiently  to 
form  an  opinion  ?  A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  read  the  facts  connected  with -the 
trial  of  Pierce  at  Lockport.  A.  Yes,  I  read 
that. 

Q.  That  defense  was  set  up  there  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q,  Did  you  read  the  facts  and  circumstances 
connected  with  Laura  D.  Fair’s  trial?  A.  I 
did  not. 

Mr.  MUTTON  stated  that  was  all  he  had  to 
ask  the  witness,  except  the  right  to  recall  the 
witness  after  further  testimony. 

Re-direcl. 

Q.  Counsel  read  to  you  a  paragraph  from  Dr. 
Pay,  who  was  a  verv  good  writer,  but  he  left 
off  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence.  That  don’t  read 
quite  so  well.  I  will  conclude  the  sentence. 
On  the  subject  of  insanity  having  its  period  of 
incubation  he  went  on  to  say  : 

“It  follows  the  same  course  of  incubation 
and  development,  terminating  in  cure  or  death 
as  other  diseases.” 

I  will  read  the  whole  sentence  : 

“  Sometimes  lying  dormant  for  a  month,  or 
even  years,  obscure  to  others  and  perhaps  un¬ 
suspected  by  the  patient  himself  ;  at  others, 
suddenly  breaking  out  with  little  premonition 
of  its  approach,  and  again,  after  being  repeat¬ 
edly  warded  off  by  precautions  and  remedies 
finally  establishing  itself  in  its  clearest  forms; 
just  as  consumption,  for  ins^nce,  sometimes 
begins  its  ravages  so  slowly  and  insidiously  as 
to  be  perceptible  only  to  the  most  practised  ob¬ 
server.  ” 

So  that  in  speaking  of  general  insanity,  as  he 
has  spoken  there,  while  it  has  its  period  of  in¬ 
cubation,  its  manifestations  may  be  sudden  ?  A. 
That’s  the  point 

Q.  Produced  by  some  great  exciting  cause  ? 
A.  That  is  just  the  impression  I  endeavored  to 
convey. 

Q.  Now  I  will  just  ask  this  question:  I  think 
you  said  that,  leaving  out  of  the  case  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  the  defendant,  and  taking  the  other 
evidence  in  this  case,  you  then  considered  at  the 
time  this  act  was  committed  she  was  irresponsi¬ 
ble  ?  A.  I  should. 

Q.  Now  you  have  reference  to  the  testimony 
of  Mrs.  Dexter  who  says  that  when  she  saw  her 
by  the  stove,  she  looked  as  if  oppressed  and  in 
great  trouble,  that  she  looked  wild  out  of  her 
eyes  and  face,  and  that  when  she  spoke  to  her 
she  wished  she  was  dead;  and  the  evidence  of 
Mr.  Dexter  who  observed  her,  and  said  she 
looked  pale  and  wild  out  of  her  eyes;  of  Mrs. 
Gleason,  who  said  that  when  she  came  in  the 
room,  although  well  acquainted  with  her  family, 
she  did  not  notice  her  nor  speak  to  her,  and  she 


not’ced  a  wild  expression  of  the  eye;  S 
Potts,  who  says  when  he  opened  the  d; 
noticed  the  redness  of  her  eyes  and  the  1 1 
color  of  her  face,  and  that  she  passed  I 
without  speaking  to  him;  and  then  y< I 
into  consideration  the  testimony  of  the  i  i 
in-law,  as  to  her  physical  condition  p  i 
this;  the  testimony  of  her  step-mother  an 
menstrual  difficulties  as  noticed  by  h  - 
these  facts,  leaving  out  her  testimony  alt  H 
you  would  say  she  was  undoubtedly  insantj 
time  this  act  was  committed,  taking  in  < 
sideration  what  subsequently  transpirs' 
Yes. 

Q.  Other  predisposing  causes  ?  A.  Yi  j 

Kecess. 


Examination  of  Dr.  Correy  Ben 


Q.  Y'ou  were  asked  a  question  by  the 
whether  some  persons  or  physicians  II 
asserted  the  idea,  or  advanced  the  idea,  i 
persons  who  committed  crime  were  t 
you  don’t  mean  to  say  that  any  rec<  iguizji 
ical  authority  advances  any  such 
That  is  what  I  intended  to  say. 

Q.  You  don’t  mean  to  say  that  any  to 
medical  authority  advances  any  such  i>4 
I  do  not. 

Q.  You  would  consider  a  person  who  8  s# 
an  idea  of  that  kind  rather  a  lunatic  a 
A.  I  should  be  inclined  to. 

None  of  the  authorities  to  wliiel  k| 


Q- 


1 


referred  advance  any  such  propositio'  ,i 
Not  one. 

Q.  Do  you  know  any  medical  writ 
who  has  ever  advanced  any  idea  of  th 
A.  I  do  not 

Q.  Is  it  not  referred  to  in  all  the  J 
works  to  which  I  have  called  your  atte:* 
the  purpose  of  ridiculing  the  idea  and  iW 
its  absurdity?  A.  Yes;  they  have  c*  1| 
the  idea. 

Q.  Now  is  it  not  the  fact  that  person  » 
with  this  form  of  mania,  after  it  pass 


-  .  J 

recollect  something  of  what  has  occuifll 
They  frequently  do  recollect  more  or  ldl 


Re-cross. 


Q.  In  this  particular  case,  when,  in  vrj 
ment,  did  insanity  commence.  A.  It  is*| 
ble  to  say.  _ 

Q.  As  you  have  heard  this  evidence 
you  consider  to  be  the  first  indicate  <( 
sanity  ?  A.  I  consider  the  violent  act* 
the  first  well  marked  exhibition  of  insd 
Q.  What  indication  did  you  see  th  • 
well  marked,  prior  to  the  act?  A.  J*j 
ceding  condition  of  the  prisoner:  he:if| 
nervousness. 

Q.  What  specific  act  of  the  prison^ 
prior  to  the  killing,  do  you  specity  a^i 
one  tending  to  show  insanity,  under  's 
mouy  ?  A.  If  I  understand  your  ques;0t 
is  no  single  act  which,  of  itself,  is  prfl 
sanity.  [H 

Q.  I  don’t  mean  to  ask  that  whai>®4 


83 


I  asked  you  what  specific  act,  prior  to 
ling,  is  in  your  judgment  evidence  of  in- 
or  tending  to  show  insanity — not  suffi- 
but  tending  to  show?  A.  Insanity  is  not 
uily  shown  by  acts.  The  condition  of 
dividual  himself,  his  mental  disturbance 
b  the  only  indication  there  is. 

was  there,  in  your  judgment,  any  act  of 
soner,  prior  to  the  killing,  which  tended 
V  insanity  ?  A.  I  think  her  whole  con- 
id  demeanor  on  the  morning  of  the  day 
i  shooting  teuded  to  show  a  condition  in 
Kvell-marked  insanity  is  likely  to  occur, 
ou  say  that  was  a  condition  from  which 
ly  might  result.  Now  the  question  I 
ix>  put  is  this:  Was  there  any  act  prior 
lulling,  on  the  part  of  the  prisoner,  which 
c  tself  tend  to  show  that  she  was  of  uu- 
:aind?  A.  I  do  not  recall  any  specific 
testified  to. 

hen  her  condition  is  indicative  that  she 
ipe  a  subject  of  iusanity  ?  A.  Yes. 
ow,  assume  that  she  was  insane,  in  the 
i :  which  you  have  testified,  when  this  act 
:  omitted,  when,  under  this  evidence,  do 
6'  that  insanity  occurred?  A.  That  is 

II  impossible  to  say. 

is  it  ceased  yet?  A.  So  far  as  I  am 
tiudge. 

l|b  you  think  it  had  occurred  when  she 
tthe  station  house  two  hours  afterwards? 
a  not  able  to  say. 

.  it  not  a  fact  that  where  mania  Iransitoria 
u  rates  itself  in  this  way  that  there  are 
■  ] dications  afterwards,  and  a  considerable 
a  awards,  indicating  that  fact  generally, 
s  uld  expect  to  find  them. 

1  es  it  not  often  result  in  a  confirmed  in¬ 
i'  A.  Very  frequently. 

I  n't  the  persons  who  thus  suddenly  make 
n  aifestation  of  insanity  frequently  con- 
t  be  obviously  and  clearly  insane  after¬ 
s'  A.  Not  general! y. 

I; sometimes  happens  that  way?  A.  It 
t  1  so. 

Oi  you  specify  any  act  of  this  accused 
t  killing  that  indicated  to  you  an  un- 
I  |te  cf  mind;  and  if  so  what  ? 

•  .ORRIS. — That  has  all  been  fully  gone 
bare. 

RITTON.— I  think  not — no  specific 
t  prisoner  which  indicated  an  unsound 
oftiind  after  the  killing. 

I '  ither  think  it  is  the  absence  of  any 
lie  st  that  indicated  it. 

T  n  what  is  your  answer  to  my  question  ? 
k  mind  had  not  been  disturbed  I  think 
nc  probably  she  would  have  made  some 
tc'Scape. 

V :  there  any  affirmative  specific  act  of 
o’  ny  omission  of  act,  after  the  killing, 
nc  ated  to  you  that  she  was  of  unsound 
■l-  In  giving  an  answer  to  that  question 
tlciake  into  consideration  the  fact  that 
>  ?  lingly  went  to  the  station  house. 

Yc  consider  that  a  specific  act  indicating 
'tji|  A.  It  is  one  of  the  facts  which  I 
it’  icessary  to  take  into  consideration. 

Is  lere  any  act  of  her’s,  under  the  evi- 
■  a*  the  killing,  which  you  would  con¬ 


sider  indicative  of  insanity  ?  A.  I  don’t  recall 
any  evidence  bearing  on  that  question. 

Q.  Beyond  that  it  is  the  absence  of  acts,  in 
your  judgment  ?  (No  answer. ) 

Re-direct. 

Q.  Is  it  an  accurate  use  of  terms  or  words  to 
speak  of  premonitory  symptoms  or  predisposing 
causes  as  specific  acts  of  insanity  ?  A.  No. 

Q.  Of  course  not,  and  the  first  specific  act 
of  insanity  was  the  outburst  itself?  A.  I  think 
so. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  was  not  asking  that. 

Q.  But  you  spoke  of  her  appearance  in  the 
morning  as  described  by  witnesses — her  flurried 
condition  and  her  appearance  as  simply  show¬ 
ing  that  there  was  some  great  agitation  going 
on  in  the  mind  which  predisposed  it  and  pre¬ 
pared  it  for  this  manifestation,  which  was  the 
outburst?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  was  an  insane  act;  and  you  spoke  of 
another  of  those  as  indicating  insanity  as  an  in¬ 
accurate  use  of  terms  ?  A.  I  look  upon  it  as 
such. 

Q.  In  forming  your  opinion  you  do  not  sep¬ 
arate  the  acts  but  take  the  whole  case  together  ? 
A.  I  take  into  view  the  entire  history  of  the 
occurrence. 

R(-;ross. 

Q.  You  don’t  consider  it  an  inaccurate  ques¬ 
tion  to  ask  what  act  indicates  insanity  if  that  is 
what  a  person  wants  to  know  ?  A.  I  do  not  in¬ 
tend  to  say  so. 

Q.  Will  you  define,  if  you  please,  the  differ¬ 
ence  in  the  state  of  mind  of  a  person  killing  an¬ 
other  while  acting  under  insanity— in  otherwords 
an  insane  state  of  mind  which  leads  to  killing, 
and  a  sound  state  of  mind  under  heat  of  passion 
which  leads  to  killing — what  is  the  difference  in 
the  state  of  the  mind  or  brain  of  the  person  ?  A. 
If  the  act  were  done  in  passion  I  should  not  ex¬ 
pect  to  find  any  evidence  of  disturbance  previous 
to  or  subsequent  to  the  act.  What  the  definite 
state  of  the  person’s  mind  might  be - 

Q.  (Interrupting. )  The  question  I  ask  you 
is  purely  psychological  and  automatical:  What 
is  the  difference  in  the  condition  of  the  brain  or 
of  th«  mind  between  a  person  insane  killing  a 
man,  and  a  person  sane  killing  a  man  ?  A. 
There  must  be  some  disturbances  in  the  condi¬ 
tion  of  the  brain,  probably  a  degree  of  cerebral 
congestion,  an  unnatural  fullness,  in  the  insane 
state. 

Q.  In  one  case  there  would  be  a  physical 
disease  of  the  brain?  A.  There  would  bean 
unnatural  congestion  of  the  brain. 

Q.  Would  not  there  be  congestion  in  a  very 
high  state  of  passion  when  the  person  was  not 
insane  ?  A.  There  would  be,  but  it  would  be  of 
a  different  kind. 

Q.  Well,  what  is  the  difference  ?  A.  I  do  not 
know  that  I  am  able  to  define  the  difference. 

Q.  Insanity  arises  from  congestion  of  brain, 
and  likewise  a  high  state  of  passion  leads  to  a 
congestion  of  brain;  and  now  are  these  states  of 
congestion  of  brain  different  physically  in  their 
nature?  A.  Yes,  sir;  in  the  case  of  a  sane  per¬ 
son  jthere  would  be  no  previous  evidence  of 
trouble,  and  the  evidences  would  subside  much 


84 


more  completely  and  more  speedily  than  in  the 
insane. 

Q.  Is  not  there  this  difference:  In  one  case 
the  brain  is  diseased  prior  to  the  breaking  out 
of  thin  transitory  ebullition,  in  the  other  case 
the  brain  is  sound  ?  A.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
there  should  be  a  physical  disease  that  we  are 
able  to  recognize. 

Q.  Is  not  that  the  fact  ?  Is  not  that  the  theory 
of  Ray,  Brown,  Bushnell  and  others,  that  in¬ 
sanity  invariably  arises  from  a  disease  of  the 
brain?  A.  They  suppose  it  diseased,  but  we 
are  not  able  in  all  instances  to  discover  it  by 
post  mortem  examination. 

Q.  Is  not  that  the  accepted  theory  of  all  tliese 
writers  ?  A.  They  say  it  is  probable,  but  they 
fail  to  find  evidence  of  it. 

Q.  Is  not  that  the  accepted  theory  as  distin¬ 
guished  from  actual  demonstration,  accepted  by 
the  profession  ?  A.  I  think  they  are  unanimous 
in  the  view  that  there  is  a  morbid  condition  of 
the  brain. 

The  COURT. — A  diseased  condition?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  Now,  is  it  not  an  accepted  theory  in  cases 
of  mania  Iransiloria  that  that  diseased  condi¬ 
tion  must  have  existed  prior  to  the  single  act 
which  indicates  this  outburst?  A.  Yes;  that's 
what  I  have  been  endeavoring  to  have  the  jury 
understand. 


Dr.  Byrne — Recalled  by  Defendant. 

COURT. — Direct  examination  resumed. 

Q.  Have  you  examined  the  authorities  to 
which  reference  has  been  made — Ray,  Taylor, 
Beauford  and  others — as  to  what  they  say  on 
the  subject  of  mania  iransiloria  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Without  occupying  much  time  to  read 
them  over,  did  you  hear  the  extracts  that  I  read 
from  those  authorities  while  Dr.  Correy  wasgon 
the  stand  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Do  you  agree  or  not  with  his  opinion 
upon  the  authorities  ?  A.  I  agree  with  him. 

Q.  Is  it  a  well  established  fact  that  insanity 
may  be  produced  suddenly  by  some  exciting, 
overpowering  cause,  expend  itself  in  an  act, 
and  then  pass  away  shortly  after  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Would  you  consider  a  person  in  whose 
family  there  was  an  hereditary  taint  of  insanity, 
of  a  nervous  temperament,  of  delicate  health, 
suffering  from  painlul  dismenorrhcea,  one  in 
whom  you  would  be  likely  to  find  such  mani¬ 
festations?  A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q.  As  a  predisposing,  pre-existing  cause,  you 
would  place  this  menstrual  difficulty  as  one  of 
the  prominent  causes?  A.  Undoubtedly,  sir. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  a  person’s  mind  may 
be  predisposed  to  insanity,  and  yet  give  no  out¬ 
ward  manifestation  that  would  be  observable  to 
the  common  observer  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  A  sudden  shock  of  any  kind  has  been  re¬ 
garded  as  cause  for  developing  this  predisposi¬ 
tion?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Don't  the  authorities  maintain  the  doc¬ 
trine  that  this  form  of  insanity  is  as  clear  as  any 
other  form  ?  A.  They  do;  it  is  the  generally 
accepted  doctrine. 

Q.  It  has  beeu  for  the  last  fifty  years  ?  A. 


Yes;  with  some  for  so  long  a  period 
with  others  less.  It  is  becoming  more  g 
accepted. 

Q.  Some  of  the  English  authorities  hi 
more  backward  in  recognizing  these  < 
phases  of  insanity  ?  A.  They  have  bee 

Q.  It  was  formerly  considered  that  a 
mind  must  be  utterly  obliterated  bap 
could  be  considered  insane,  or  irresp. 
A.  That  is  so. 

Q.  Delusion  is  not  nowr  considered 
unfailing  condition  of  insanity  ?  A.  N I 

Q.  Dr.  Choate  has  been  referred  to.  I 
know  whether  he  goes  as  far  on  the  si  1 
many  of  the  authorities  and  physician'] 
believe  he  differs  in  some  respects,  but  I 
particular  I  am  not  enabled  to  detenni 
does  not  go  so  far;  I  am  aware  of  that. 

Q.  See  if  you  can  agree  with  him  toi 
tent: 

“  There  are  cases  of  sudden  outburst 
nia  in  persons  who  have  not  indicated 
insanity  to  the  common  eye.” 

That  you  regard  as  correct?  A.  I 
edly. 

Q.  You  recognize  that  as  sound  c 
A.  Ido. 

Mr.  BRITTON.— Is  that  produced 
Choate’s  opinion  ? 

Mr.  MORRIS.— I  won’t  put  that! 
Choate’s  opinion.  I  read  from  a  work  tlj 
in  my  hand. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  the  paragraph  I  ri 
Dr.  Beauford  to  Dr.  Correy  ?  A.  Yes.  ■ 

Q.  With  reference  to  the  effect  of  thj 
strual  and  uterine  disorders  upon  th 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  From  your  experience  in  those  dii 
you  agree  with  Dr.  Beauford  that  that  I 
ful  cause  of  producing  mental  derail 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  fact  fully  recognized  b 
authorities  that  insanity  in  the  family  I 
generations  and  show  itself  in  succeed 
erations?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  is  not  that  true  whether  oil 
female  ?  A.  Yes. 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  To  what  extent  have  you  given  f 
sonal  attention  to  cases  of  insanity  ?  .. 
extent  that  might  be  supposed  of  evei!« 
practitioner.  .  B 

Q.  You  have  held  no  special  positional 
to  that  disease?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  But  incidentally,  in  accordance  1 
extensive  practice  ?  A.  1  es,  sir.  r 

Q.  More  particularly  you  have  devJU 
attention  to  diseases  of  the  female  sex 

Q.  In  the  testimony  which  you  ll 
you  have  given  it  under  questions  a* 
you  read  those  authors  for  the  purpd 
trial  ?  A.  I  looked  into  some  of  thei 
purpose. 

O.  Did  you  know  Dr.  Choate  persoi 
No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  position  he  p 
A.  Yes;  I  know  he  is  attached  to  an  ip 
for  the  care  of  the  insane. 

Q.  Wlmt  place?  A.  Massachusetts^ 


85 


hat  works  of  his,  if  any,  have  you  read  ? 
c  any;  I  have  seen  references  to  his 
ic  3,  but  have  never  read  any  of  his  works, 
inferences  to  his  opinions  ’were  in  other 
s  A.  Yes. 

iu  were  asked  whether  insanity  might 
r<uced  suddenly,  to  which  I  understood 
onswerin  the  affirmative;  do  you  mean 
p-|h.at  ?  A.  Yes,  sir;  but  as  all  direct  an- 
i  direct  questions  require  some  explana- 
laay  state  the  manifestation  of  insanity 
biudden. 

ju  don’t  mean  to  say  insanity  was  pro- 
1  iddenly,  but  the  manifestation  of  insan- 
a  appear  suddenly  ?  A.  Yes. 

1  a  person  kill  another  and  that  was 
ea  manifestation  of  insanity  would  not 
1  in  your  judgment,  previous  manifesta- 
i  licating  that  conditition  of  mind  ?  A. 
nessarily  appreciable  to  the  casual  ob- 
r. 

1  u  recognize  insanity  to  be  a  disease  of 
m,  or  of  the  mind  through  the  brain,  of 
nil,  I  think  ?  A.  If  his  mind  be  diseased, 

;  normal,  inexplicable,  unnatural  condi- 
I  iy  yes. 

lit  not  always  under  an  unnatural  con- 
l  f  the  parts  ?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  but  I  say 
p:  liable  —  that  is  to  say,  a  condition 
pathologists  have  not  been  able  to  de¬ 
fine. 

1  you  believe  that  condition  may  be 
Ml  instantaneously  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Iu  were  asked  a  hypothetical  ques- 
p  to  you  by  counsel  on  the  other  side, 
5  ou  answered  in  the  affirmative,  you 
eil  on  the  assumption  that  the  facts 
1  that  question  were  correct  ?  A.  Yes. 

1  that  question  occurred  the  phrase — 
in  witnesses  testified  so  and  so;  another 
nsestified  so  and  so.  Now  you  assumed 
uering  that  question,  not  merely  that 
tf  ified  so,  but  that  the  fact  was  so  ?  A. 

I  isumed  it  to  be  a  fact  that  all  the  testi- 
'  I.  that  question  was  true. 

■|d  if  not  true,  then  you  don’t  mean  to 
ic  stood  as  answering  anything  on  that 
c  A.  No,  sir. 

Ju  have  been  present  during  all  this  tes- 
r  elating  to  this  matter  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

E'EFENSE  HEBE  BESTS. 


i\  n  Cornelius  Wog-lom — Recalled 
for  the  Prosecution. 


^  the  time  Mrs.  Hyde,  with  her  brother, 
ad  husband,  came  to  the  station-house, 
there  ?  A.  Sergeant  Bunce  and 


% 


me  again  at  what  hour  it  was  that 
«i|.e?  A.  Between  one  and  two  o’clock. 

1 1  they  all  come  in  together  ?  A.  Yes. 

I  o  first  spoke  to  you  on  the  subject  of 

;  ORRIS. — I  object.  What  is  the  object 
is  stimony? 

'•  RITTON. — We  expect  to  show  the 


condition  of  the  mind  of  this  prisoner  at  the 
time  she  went  to  the  station  house.  It  is  on 
the  question  of  insanity. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — I  submit  to  the  Court  that 
this  witness  and  also  the  accused  have  been  ex¬ 
amined  on  that  subject.  I  submit  to  the  Court 
they  cannot  contradict  the  accused  on  that  sub¬ 
ject  ;  they  made  her  their  own  witness  on  that 
subject.  Secondly,  because  it  is  not  a  subject  of 
contradiction,  because  she  simply  stated  that 
she  don’t  recollect  what  she  had  said  there  to 
the  captain.  Now  a  person  cannot  lay  a  foun¬ 
dation  for  contradicting  a  witness  where  they 
ask  a  question  and  the  witness  answers  she 
don’t  remember.  They  cannot  contradict  testi¬ 
mony  of  that  kind,  nor  can  they  contradict  a  wit¬ 
ness  they  make  their  own.  I  submit  that  on 
the  two  grounds  the  question  is  not  admis¬ 
sible. 

The  COURT. — The  defense  set  up  affirma¬ 
tively  in  this  case  on  the  part  of  the  accused  is 
insanity,  and  that  therefore  she  was  irrespon¬ 
sible.  While,  ordinarily  speaking,  the  prose¬ 
cution  must  make  out  a  criminal  case  against  a 
person  of  sound  mind  in  order  to  make  that 
person  responsible,  yet  when  that  is  set  up  as 
an  affirmative  defense,  and  testimony  is  offered 
on  that  branch  of  the  case,  it  is  competent  for 
the  prosecution  to  offer  in  rebuttal  testimony 
going  to  establish  sanity. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — I  make  the  further  objection 
that  they  should  not  be  permitted  to  prove  any¬ 
thing  that  is  a  part  of  their  affirmative  case. 

The  COURT. — I  don’t  admit  it  in  that  view. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — If  that  forms  a  part  of  their 
affirmative  case  they  cannot  put  in  that  testi¬ 
mony  now. 

The  COURT. — I  admit  it  as  going  distinctly 
to  the  defense  sought  to  be  established  here 
affirmatively.  It  touches  the  status  of  the  mind 
of  the  accused. 

Q.  Now,  Captain,  who  first,  in  the  presence 
of  the  prisoner,  said  anything  about  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  the  killing  ?  A.  Mr.  Hyde. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ?  A.  Well,  he  came  in 
and  said  he  had  a  terrible  thing  to  tell  me.  He 
commenced  to  tell  what  it  was.  They  all  came 
in  together.  Of  course,  I  supposed  what  it 
was,  because  I  had  previously — 

Q.  State  what  he  said  ?  A.  He  said  he  had 
come  with  an  awful  thing,  to  give  his  wife  up 
for  shooting  and  killing  Mr.  Watson,  down  at 
the  factory,  and  I  made  some  remark. 

Q.  What  was  it  ?  A.  I  said  it  was  an  awful 
thing,  or  something  like  that.  Then  we  stepped 
one  side  to  my  private  office.  He  told  her  then 
to  tell  what  had  transpired,  and  all  about  it. 
She  commenced  to  tell;  commenced  to  say  that 
she  had  known  Mr.  Watson  nearly  three  years, 
and  that  he  had  seduced  her,  and  followed  her 
from  shop  to  street,  and  from  that  to  the  house, 
and  that  she  had  tried  to  avoid  him,  but  could 
not,  and  she  stated  that  she  had  told  her  hus¬ 
band  of  it,  and  he  was  dissatisfied;  and  she  said 
that  the  night  before  they  had  had  a  quarrel  in 
her  shop,  Watson  and  her;  that  he  had  called 
her  a  whore,  and  told  her  she  was  going  with 
other  men,  and  that  she  was  worked  up  so  in 
her  mind  that  she  had  shot  him  for  satisfaction. 
I  then  told  her  to  come  out  to  the  desk  and  give 


86 


/ 


the  sergeant  her  name  and  pedigree  ;  then  I 
started  off  for  the  factory. 

Q.  What  was  her  appearance  at  that  time  ? 
A.  Well,  she  had  been  crying.  She  was  ex¬ 
cited. 

Q.  What  was  her  manner  while  making  this 
statement  ?  A.  Well,  she  told  her  story  calmly. 

Q.  Did  she  say  anything  on  the  subject  of  where 
or  how  it  was  done,  in  your  presence  ?  A.  No, 
I  did  not  think  she  did.  I  don’t  recollect  the 
circumstance. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  she  made  any  state¬ 
ment  to  Sergeant  Bunce?  A.  I  don’t  know 
what  statement  she  did  make.  I  went  out  im¬ 
mediately  to  the  factory. 

Q.  Have  you  stated  now  all  that  you  remem¬ 
ber  of  what  was  said  by  her  or  either  of  the 
three  parties  in  her  presence  ?  A.  Pretty  nearly. 
I  don’t  recollect  now. 

Q.  At  what  stage  of  the  proceedings  was  the 
pistol  given  up  ?  A.  Mrs.  Hyde’s  husband  gave 
it  to  me  immediately  after  coming  in. 

Q.  Any  barrels  loaded?  A.  No;  I  think  he 
said  he  had  discharged  it. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ?  What  was  his  lan¬ 
guage  ?  A.  I  could  not  say  exactly  ;  something 
of  that  kind  ;  either  that  he  had  discharged  it 
or  drawn  the  loads. 

Q.  There  was  then  no  charge  in  the  pistol  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  You  say  ‘-something  of  that  kind.”  What 
do  you  mean  by  “that  kind?"  Do  you  mean 
to  say  now  that  you  have  recollection  on  that 
subject?  A.  Y'es,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ?  A.  Either  discharged 
or  drawn  them— one  or  the  other. 

Q.  Is  that  all  ?  A.  That  is  about  all. 


Sergeant  George  TV.  Bunce — Sworn. 

Q.  What  is  your  position?  A.  Sergeant  of 
the  5th  Precinct  Station. 

Q.  Were  you  at  the  station  house  when  the 
prisoner  and  some  other  parties  came  in  on  the 
day  of  the  shooting  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  was  said  to  you  by  the  prisoner  or 
any  of  the  parties  in  her  presence  ?  A.  I  saw 
them  talking  with  Captain  Woglom  at  tirst ; 
what  it  was  then  I  did  not  understand.  I  was 
doing  some  writing  there.  He  referred  them  to 
me,  and  handed  the  pistol  over  the  desk,  and 
told  her  to  tell  me  about  it.  She  stood  for  a 
moment  and  did  not  say  anything.  I  asked  her 
what  it  was.  Mr.  Hyde  said,  “  Fanny,  make  a 
statement,  and  tell  him  all  about  it.”  She  said 
she  had  shot  Mr.  Watson.  I  asked  her  where. 
She  said  at  the  corner  of  South  Eleventh  and 
First  streets,  in  the  factory.  I  asked  her  where 
she  shot  him.  She  said  up  stairs.  I  asked  her 
what  she  shot  him  for.  She  said  he  abused  her 
and  insulted  her.  I  asked  her  if  he  struck  her. 
She  said  no;  he  abused  her  and  called  her 
names.  She  said  she  went  down  stairs  that 
morning,  and  when  she  came  up  he  accused  her 
of  being  down  stairs  with  another  man,  and 
she  shot  him. 


Q.  Was  there  anything  further  said  tha  j 
remember?  A.  Nothing  further  that  I  re:  i 
her. 

Cross-examination. 

Q.  Did  you  take  down  those  question)  o 
answers  ?  A.  Nearly  all  of  them. 

Q.  Have  you  got  them  with  you  ?  A  i 
sir. 

Q.  You  were  not  examined  before  the  n 
ner?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Captain  Woglom  was  ?  A.  I  believe 

Q.  You  knew  when  the  investigatior  .i 
going  on  ?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Were  you  there?  A.  I  was. 

Q.  In  the  room  ?  A.  I  was. 

Y’ou  may  go. 


Thomas  Langan — Sworn. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ?  A.  Detect  ( 
the  Fifth  Precinct. 

The  COURT. — Attached  to  the  polii  di 
partment?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  see  the  prisoner  ’  i 
all,  to  know  her?  A.  I  saw  her  on  thert 
the  homicide. 

Q.  About  what  time  of  day  ?  A.  Ik  ee 
one  and  two. 

Q.  Where  ?  A.  At  the  station  house.  | 

Q.  Did  you  accompany  her  any  where  <  In 
day  ?  A.  No,  sir.  That  evening  Capt.  IV  loi 
and  me  accompanied  her  to  the  inquest. 

Q.  Who  particularly  took  charge  of  he  J 
The  Captain. 

Q.  You  were  walking  up  there  with  m 
A.  Sometimes  behind  and  sometimes  aim  idi 

A.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  vi  bt 
going  up.  A.  Not  that  night. 

Q.  When  next  time  did  you  see  her  ?  h 
took  her  down  to  headquarters  next  more  j. 

Q.  What  was  her  manner,  so  far  tvs  y  on 
describe  it,  on  that  first  day.  A.  On  tl  fin 
day  or  night  I  did  not  have  any  conve  tkN 
with  her. 

Q.  What  was  her  manner  ?  A.  She  tin* 
to  be  very  culm  in  her  manner.  Once  in  >  hi! 
she  would  shed  some  tears. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  particular  in  ht  nan 
ner?  A.  No.  sir. 

Q.  The  next  day  where  did  you  go  wither 
A.  Down  to  headquarters. 

Q.  Where  are  they  located?  A.  Court n*t 

Q.  How  do  you  go  down  ?  A.  In  the  r.  ■ 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  uin 
down.  A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  she  say  anything  to  you  on  tl  stth 
ject  of  this  homicide  ?  A.  She  did. 

Q.  State  to  the  court  and  jury  the  co:«u* 
tion,  as  near  as  you  can  remember  it?  AiU 
I  asked  her  how  she  came  to  shoot  tl  lit 
Watson  ?  She  said  he  had  abused  her  aunl|fl 
her  vile  names,  and  threatened  to  discha  e  ha 
the  day  before. 

Q.  Did  she  say  anything  about  the  sh  ting 
A.  She  said  she  was  coming  out  on  the 
and  Mr.  Watson  was  on  the  landing,  rd  u 


87 


1<  her  some  very  abusive  names  on  the 
cig,  and  she  shot  him. 

J  Did  she  say  anything  on  the  subject  of  the 
tier  of  times  she  shot  him  ?  A.  I  asked 
■  iw  many  times  and  she  said  only  once, 
j  Did  she  say  anything  as  to  what  occurred 
»:he  shooting  ?  A.  No.  I  do  not  know  as 
!  d  after  the  shooting. 

}  4s  to  where  she  went  immediately  after 
footing  ?  A.  Oh,  she  said  he  fell  down  stairs 
1  le  followed  him  down  to  the  foot  of  the 
i)  and  there  she  remained  until  Ellen  Cur- 
ime  in  from  some  place  where  she  was  at 
rnment.  She  said  she  remained  with  the 
l;-or  with  Mr.  Watson  until  their  girl  came 

j.Do  you  remember  anything  else  she  said 
a  g  down  there  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  as  I  do. 
i-Did  you  say  anything  to  her  on  the  sub- 
t  '  why  she  remained  there  ?  A.  Oh,  yes, 

:  asked  her  if  Mr.  Watson  had  abused  her. 
i  .id  he  abused  her  several  times,  and  she 
il  not  shake  him  off,  or  something  of  that 
id  I  asked  her - 

I  MORRIS. — Speak  out,  speak  out,  don’t 
imethiug  of  the  kind. 

il  BRITTON. — It  is  not  proper  to  inter- 
)tn  examination  that  way,  whatever  might 
tl  purpose  and  intent. 

L  asked  her  why  she  did  not  leave  the 
cnnd  go  to  work  with  her  father,  who  was 
ttsame  business.  She  said  she  could  make 
nnoney  with  Mr.  Watson,  that  was  about 

l  )id  she  say  anything  further  with  refer- 
;e )  the  shooting  ?  A.  No,  sir;  she  said  she 
.  jt  mean  to  kill  him. 

I  Vhat  did  she  say  she  meant  to  do  ?  A. 
at  he  meant  to  scare  him. 
y  Vhat  did  she  say,  it  anything,  as  to  the 
pie  of  her  intending  to  scare  him  and  what 
ju  say  to  her  ?  A.  I  told  her  it  was  a  very 
!  air.  She  said  she  could  not  help  it.  She 
s  try  for  it. 

)n  the  puipose  of  her  intent  to  scare  him 
u  ask  any  questions  ?  A.  I  asked  her  ; 

:  c  1  not  give  me  any  answer  ;  she  kind  of 
ilc  ;  I  asked  her  what  was  her  intent  in 
n  jo,  for  money  or  anything  of  that  kind  ; 
nd  of  smiled  and  did  not  give  me  any 

IW'. 

Cross-examined. 

ou  had  charge  of  her  the  first  night  of 
i  nest,  and  took  her  from  the  factory  to 
ition-house.  A.  Yes  ;  the  captain  and 

l-  ou  had  charge  particularly  yourself  ?  A. 
iil  her  folks  were  with  her. 

<>•  /hat  was  your  object  in  taking  her  down 
ae  1-quarters  ?  A.  I  obeyed  an  order. 

I-  ou  were  ordered  to  take  her  down  there  ? 
I  is. 

i-  he  was  in  your  custody  and  had  been 
er  rom  her  cell  ?  A.  Yes. 

I  was  during  that  time  you  pumped  these 
ts  it  of  her,  or  what  you  considered  to  be 
ts  A.  Yes.  „  j_ 

1-  rhat  was  your  object  in  doing  it  ?  A.  I 
nt  to  get  the  facts. 

I  •  I 


Q.  Were  you  examined  before  the  coroner? 
A.  No. 

Q.  You  were  there  during  the  inquest  ?  A* 
Yes. 

Q.  In  the  room  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  were  not  examined?  A.  No. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  speak  about  these 
things,  and  to  whom  ?  A.  I  don’t  know. 

Q.  When  and  to  whom  did  you  speak  of 
these  matters  ?  A.  I  don’t  know  as  I  spoke 
about  them  to  anybody  except  the  District 
Attorney7. 

Q.  How  long  ago  was  that  ?  A.  Last  week. 

Q.  Is  that  the  first  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  never  mentioned  the  subject  to  your 
captain?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Nor  the  coroner  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  spoke  about  it  first  to  the  District 
Attorney?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  may  retire. 

lie-direct. 

Q.  You  was  not  called  at  the  coroner’s  in¬ 
quest?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  not  you  sent  for  when  you  went  to 
the  District  Attorney’s  office  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  was  inquired  of  as  to  what  you  knew 
of  this  matter  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  In  answer  to  those  inquiries  you  made 
this  statement?  A  Yes. 

Q.  That  is  all  there  is  to  that  ?  A.  Yes. 


Ellen  Curley — Recalled  by  tlie  Pros¬ 
ecution. 

Q.  When  you  came  in  that  day  and  found 
the  prisoner  at  the  door  as  you  described  it,  did 
she  say  anything  to  you  on  that  occasion  ?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — This  is  in  rebuttal? 

The  COURT. — It  goes  to  her  state  of  mind. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — She  has  been  examined  very 
fully  as  to  what  she  said  and  what  she  did,  and 
all  about  it. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — I  never  heard  of  that  in¬ 
sanity  until  I  rested  the  case. 

Question  admitted. 

Q.  Did  she  say  anything  to  you  on  that  occa¬ 
sion  ?  A.  She  told  me  that  Mr.  Watson  was 
lying  in  the  hall  and  that  she  had  killed  him  ; 
but  I  forgot  to  say  that  at  the  coroner’s  in¬ 
quest. 

Q. '  This  was  when  she  stood  at  the  door — 
was  kicking  at  the  door — when  she  told  you? 
A.  She  said  that  Mr.  Watson  was  lying  in  the 
hall — that  she  had  killed  him. 

Cross-Examined. 

Q.  You  testified  before  the  coroner,  did  not 
you,  that  she  was  standing  there  wringing  her 
hands  and  moaning  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  she  told  you  to  go  into  the  room 
and  tell  some  one  to  come  out,  that  Mr.  Watson 
was  lying  at  the  foot  of  the  stairs  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  certified  to  that  before  the  coroner? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  that  is  all  on  that  subject?  A.  Yes, 


88 


Rc-  tired. 

Q,  Why  did  not  yon  state  the  fact  which  you 
now  state,  that  she  told  you  she  had  killed  him  ? 
A.  Because  I  forgot  it  at  the  inquest 

Re-coss. 

Q.  I  called  your  attention  to  the  subject  when 
you  was  examined  here,  especially  ?  A.  Yes, 
sir. 


Eliza  JfT.  Watson — For  the  Prosecu¬ 
tion. 

Q,  You  are  the  widow  of  the  deceased?  A 
I  am. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside?  A.  Hartford,  Con¬ 
necticut 

Q.  Did  you  reside  there  at  the  tune  of  this 
homicide?  A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  does  your  family  consist  of?  A 
Five  children — four  girls  and  one  boy. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  married?  A 
Eighteen  years  last  September. 

Q.  Where  was  your  residence  last  summer,  in 
July?  A.  Hartford. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  circumstance  of  he 
and  Mrs.  Hyde  coming  to  your  house?  A.  I 
do. 

Q,  Did  they  come  more  than  once  ?  A.  She 
came  twice- 

Q.  About  what  time  did  she  first  come  ?  A. 
I  cannot  fix  the  exact  date  the  first  time;  the 
second  time  it  was  the  2d  of  July. 

Q.  How  long  before  that  did  she  come  first  ? 
A-  It  must  have  been  the  last  of  May  or  the  1st 
of  June 

Q.  How  long  did  they  stay  the  first  time  ?  A. 
A.  From  Saturday  night  until  Monday  morning. 

Q.  Did  they  come  and  go  with  your  husband  ? 
A-  They  did. 

Q.  What  did  your  family  consist  of  on  that 
occasion  ?  A.  The  whole  family  were  at  home, 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  servants  ?  A.  Yes, 
one. 

Q.  Were  they  there  on  Sunday,  on  either  oc¬ 
casion  ?  A.  They  were  all  there;  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Hyde — on  Sunday,  on  both  occasions. 

Q.  The  first  occasion  when  you  was  there  did 
you  go  to  church  ?  A.  I  did  and  Mrs.  Hyde 
accompanied  me. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  to  you  by  your  hus¬ 
band  on  either  occasion  to  induce  you  to  go  to 
church  ?  A.  There  was  not 

Q.  Nothing  said  on  that  subject  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  second  occasion  when  they  came 
there  how  long  did  they  stay  ?  A.  From  Satur¬ 
day  until  Tuesday  morning. 

Q.  Sunday  being  the  Fourth  of  July?  A 
Yes. 

Q,  On  the  second  occasion,  were  the  family 
all  there  as  before  ?  A.  All  there  the  same. 

Q.  How  old  is  your  oldest  girl  ?  A.  Seven¬ 
teen  last  September. 

Q.  How  old  is  the  youngest  ?  A.  Three. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  church  on  that  evening — 
the  4th.  A.  I  did  in  the  forenoon.  Mrs.  Hyde 
went  in  the  forenoon  with  me. 


Q.  Did  you  go  in  the  evening  ?  A.  I  did  | 

Q.  Was  there  anything  whatever  said  on  | 
occasion  by  Mr.  Watson  on  the  subject  of  §  / 
to  church  ?  A.  There  was  not. 

Q.  Nothing  whatever  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

0-  Nothing  said  to  you  on  either  occasio  j 
the  subject  of  his  staying  home  with  Mrs.  1 1 
to  take  care  of  the  children  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  nurse  there  with  your  | 
dren  ?  A.  My  girL  I  had  only  one  ser  | 
She  was  there  and  acted  in  the  capacity  I  wi  < 
to  have  her 

Q.  What  were  the  characteristics  of  your  i 
band  as  a  father  and  a  husband  ?  A.  One  o  i 
kindest  and  best  of  men. 

Q-  What  were  his  habits  when  in  the  saint  i 
as  to  remaining  at  home  ?  A.  Always  at  ho , 

Mr.  MOKE  IS. — Is  that  proper  testimony 

Mr.  BRITTON.— If  it  is  not  I  cert  : 
don't  ask  to  introduce  it. 

The  COURT. — If  he  objects,  I  shall  ha- 1 
sustain  the  objection. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — I  object. 

Objection  sustained. 

Q.  Look  at  that  likeness  and  see  if  it  hi 
likeness  of  your  husband  ?  A.  It  is. 

Q.  Is  it  a  good  one  ?  A.  Very  good. 

Q.  When  was  it  taken  ?  A.  Three  years  o 

Q.  Look  at  that  and  see  whether  that  i 
one  exhibited  by  Defendant’s  Attorney)  i  i 
likeness  of  your  husband  ?  A.  I  think  it  if 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  a  copy  of  that  pi  g 
before  ?  .A  Yes,  sir;  I  have  a  copy. 

Q.  When  did  you  get  it?  A.  My  hns  » 
sent  it  to  me  immediately  after  it  was  ti  i 

3’o  cross-examination. 

Mr.  BRITTON  here  asked  an  adjourmut  I 
the  court  until  the  next  morning  in  order  fc  « 
cure  witnesses  to  show  that  there  wei* 
scratches  on  the  face  of  the  deceased  V  i 
tend  to  show  there  was  no  abrasion  what  t 
That  is  the  testimony  we  propose  to  go  int  I 
do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  abeol^ 
bound  by  that  suggestion. 


Dr.  Byi'ne — Recalled  by  the  Defend 

(Dr.  Byrne  arose  from  his  seat  in  the  fc 

enee.) 

Q.  You  have  heard  the  additional  testing 
Does  that  change  your  opinion  at  all  as  till 
condition  of  the  prisoner's  mind.  A  It  ■ 
not 


Dr.  Correy — Recalled  by  the  Ded 

(And  responded  from  his  place  in  the  § 
ence.) 

Q,  You  have  heard  the  additional  testinij. 
Does  that  change  your  opinion  at  all  as  ti* 
condition  of  the  prisoner’s  mind  ?  A  It  >■ 
not 

Mr.  BRITTON  to  Dr.  Correy.— Is  ther* 
testimony  relating  to  this  transaction  tbs  '* 
could  conceive  of,  as  to  the  conduct  of  this*- 


89 


after  the  homicide,  that  would  change 
unind  as  to  the  insanity  of  the  prisoner? 
1,  sir. 

ia.e  question  put  by  Mr.  BRITTON  in 
snxamination  to  Dr.  Byrne.  A.  No,  sir. 

’1  COURT. — Can  we  make  any  further 
g  ss  in  the  trial  to-day  ? 

5a  COUNSEL. —No,  sir. 

’1  COURT. — The  counsel  must  be  pre- 
e  under  the  intimation  of  the  Court,  to  go 
i  jury  to-morrow. 

1  BRITTON. — I  shall  have  to  call  three 
nses,  whose  testimony  will  occupy  an 
u>r  so. 

I;  MORRIS. —I  will  commence  to  sum  up 
a  row. 

T  COURT  then  gave  the  usual  admoni- 
i  the  jury,  and  adjourned. 


FIFTH  DAY, 

’b  COURT  convened  at  the  usual  hour. 

i'<[zo  D.  Tice —  Sworn  for  the 
Prosecution  in  Rebuttal. 

:•  /here  do  you  reside?  A.  Brooklyn, 
it®  District. 

>,  /hat  is  your  occupation  ?  A.  An  under- 

er 

l  fid  you  officiate  as  such  at  the  decease  of 
.  Utson  ?  A.  I  did. 

id  you  make  any  examination  of  the 
3  eto  the  wounds  upon  it?  A.  I  did,  sir  ; 
i  cision  to  do  so  in  laying  him  out  and 
shjg  him. 

rhat  did  you  iind  on  the  face  in  the  way 
'Dries  of  any  kind.  A.  I  found  a  wound 
in  ie  left  part  of  the  forehead,  about  an  inch 
ivebe  eyebrow. 

.  'hat  ?  A.  A  wound. 

bruise?  A.  Yes,  a  bruise,  merely  of 
o  side  skin,  it  did  not  penetrate  through 
iin  ;  a  bruise  as  one  might  receive 
nl  from  a  carnage  or  a  horse  and  being 
SS  a  little  ;  not  through  the  skin,  but  just 
oijir  surface,  so  as  to  produce  blackness.  I 
uc  ne  commencing  at  the  side  of  the  nose, 
»ni  j  to  the  cheek  bone. 

;.  ow  wide.  A.  I  should  suppose  four- 
btl  or  three-quarters  of  an  inch  wide— not 
lar  here  as  to  the  extremity, 
i-  hat  was  the  nature  of  that  as  being 
ou  the  skin  ?  A.  Not  through  the  skin, 
i  p  luced  in  the  same  manner, 
i-  <as  it  discolored?  A.  It  turned  black 
er  i  naming  awhile. 

i-  hat  other  injuries  did  you  find  on  the 
o  •  A.  Not  anything  of  any  account  at  all. 
’eeYd  to  be  on  that  side  of  the  face,  and  in 
se  o  places. 

/•  d  you  find  any  other  indications  of  in- 
,v  <j  the  forehead  other  than  you  have  de- 
1be.  A.  No,  sir. 

^  d  you  find  on  the  forehead  any  indica- 
Q8  lnjury  on  both  sides  of  the  centre, 


across  the  forehead,  that  might  have  been  made 
by  anything  sharp  in  any  way.  A.  Nothing  of 
that  kind. 

Q.  Were  there  any  indications  of  injuries  on 
each  side  of  the  centre  of  the  forehead.  A. 
Nothing  of  that  kind  ;  nothing  about  the  fore¬ 
head  except  what  I  have  described,  which  ap¬ 
peared  as  though  it  might  have  been  produced 
by  a  fall. 

Q.  Was  there  anywhere  on  the  face  a  cut  into 
the  skin  sufficient  to  produce  blood  ?  A.  No, 
sir  ;  not  that  I  observed. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  on  the  head.  A.  No, 
sir  ;  not  that  I  saw. 

Q.  Were  there  any  such  marks  about  the  face 
as  could  be  denominated  scratches. 

Objected  to.  Let  him  state  what  they  were. 
He  is  not  an  expert. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — There  are  certain  kinds  of 
wounds  that  have  certain  names. 

The  COURT. — Let  the  witness  say  what  he 
would  call  those  wounds.  They  are  entitled  to 
object  to  the  form  of  the  question. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — Our  objection  is  that  the 
question  calls  for  an  opinion.  He  can  state 
the  nature  and  character  of  the  wounds. 

Q.  Were  there  any  indications  on  the  face  of 
what  could  properly  be  designated  as  scratches? 

Objected  to  the  question.  It  is  for  the  jury 
to  determine  what  caused  them.  He  may  state 
the  shape,  and  how  wide  and  deep  these  wounds 
were. 

The  COURT. — I  will  allow  the  witness  to  say 
what  he  would  call  these  marks. 

Q.  What  would  you  call  those  marks  on  the 
face?  A.  Well,  sir,  had  I  known  nothing  of 
the  case,  and  met  it  incidentally  in  the  street, 
I  would  have  said  he  had  fallen  from  a  carriage 
or  a  horse,  and  had  been  dragged  a  little  on  the 
ground.  There  were  indications,  marks  that 
would  be  made  by  such  a  fall,  falling  and  strik¬ 
ing  the  ground  a  short  distance. 

Q.  Was  there  on  his  face  any  where  more 
than  one  distinct  mark  in  any  place — that  is, 
side  by  side  ?  A.  No  other  marks  except  those 
I  have  described. 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  You  said  there  were  no  other  marks  on 
the  forehead  or  face  of  any  amount  or  conse¬ 
quence.  What  did  you  mean  by  that?  A.  I 
don’t  know  that  I  have  said  that. 

Q.  You  said  there  were  no  others  than  those 
you  described  of  consequence  ?  A.  I  meant  by 
that  not  sufficient  to  call  my  attention  to  it;  no 
scratches  of  any  kind. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  any  others  of  any  kind  at 
all  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  State  what  you  mean  by  “any  conse¬ 
quence?”  A.  If  there  had  been  I  should  have 
seen  them. 

Q.  Why  did  you  use  the  expression  “none  of 
any  consequence  ”  if  there  were  none  other  at 
all  ?  A  Well,  that  was  merely  a  form  of  speech 
of  mine. 

Q.  You  said  if  you  had  known  nothing  about 
this  you  would  have  supposed  a  person  was 
thrown  from  a  horse,  dragged  a  little  way  on 
the  ground.  Explain  to  the  jury  how  you  think 
that  would  cause  the  appearances,  and  in  what 


90 


manner  yon  think  the  person  had  been  dragged  ? 
A.  I  would  not  think  he  had  been  dragged  a 
great  ways. 

Q.  In  what  part  of  the  person  and  in  what 
manner  ?  A.  By  being  entangled. 

Q.  Entangled,  how  ?  A.  In  falling  from  a 
horse  or  carriage.  I  suppose  every  person  has 
sense  enough  to  know  ;  some  persons  have 
some  common  sense. 

Q.  I  want  you  to  give  us  a  little  of  your 
common  sense  now ;  I  want  to  know  in  what 
manner  you  think  a  person  would  be  dragged 
to  have  made  these  appearances  ?  A.  He  might 
have  got  entangled  in  the  harness. 

Q.  And  dragged  his  face  on  the  ground  ?  A. 
Yes,  a  short  distance. 

Re-direct. 

Q.  Did  any  body  examine  the  face  besides 
yourself  ?  A.  My  son-in-lawr ;  he  is  not  present. 
Dr.  Holmes  was  the  other. 


Dr.  Thomas  Holmes — Sworn  for  the 
Prosecution. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ?  A.  Physician 
and  surgeon. 

Q.  Do  you  embalm  bodies ;  A.  Yes  ;  am 
makmg  a  specialty  of  that  just  now. 

Q.  Did  you  embalm  the  body  of  Mr.  Watson  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  anything  to  do  with  pre¬ 
paring  it?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  body  before  burial  ?  A. 
I  was  called  upon  in  relation  to  obliterating  the 
marks  on  the  lace. 

Q.  Did  you  go  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  injuries  did  you  find  on  the  face  ? 
A.  I  found  an  abrasion  of  the  skin  about  the 
size  of  half  a  dollar  over  the  left  eye  about  the 
middle  of  the  temple  ;  the  other  one  on  the 
other  side  of  less  size,  and  one  on  the  bridge  of 
the  nose  the  other  side  of  the  nose,  and  another 
on  top  of  the  head. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  “  abrasion  of  the 
skin?”  A.  Merely  struck  up ;  the  cuticle  lifted 
up  and  the  lower  one  exposed. 

Q.  Describe  the  size  of  the  abrasion  on  the 
forehead  ?  A.  There  was  one  over  the  left  eye, 
oblong,  and  a  little  less  than  a  half  a  dollar  m 
length. 

Q.  How  wide  ?  A.  About  an  inch  and  a 
quarter. 

Q.  Was  it  a  single  abrasion  or  divided  ?  A. 
No,  sir,  not  divided ;  one  abrasion  with  the 
skin  taken  off;  that  was  all  on  the  forehead. 

Q.  On  the  face,  what  was  the  other  one  on 
the  other  side  ?  A.  A  small  round  one. 

Q.  Were  they  discolored,  either  of  them  ?  A. 
Yes. 

Q.  This  on  the  face  below;  describe  that? 
A.  There  was  one  on  the  bridge  of  the  nose, 
a  small  one,  and  one  on  the  side  of  the  nose. 

Q.  What  was  the  character  of  that?  A.  It 
was  an  abrasion,  the  skin  removed. 

Q.  What  v  as  the  shape  of  it  ?  A.  This  one 


covered  Irom  the  bridge  of  the  nose  a  lil  < 
to  the  side. 

Q.  Was  it  prolonged  any  ?  A.  No  ; . 
peared  to  be  downward. 

Q.  Was  any  other  on  any  other  part  f 
face?  A.  Not  that  I  discovered. 

Q.  What  was  that  one  on  the  head ?  i  (g 
was  pretty  good  size,  quite  large. 

Q.  Was  it  bloody?  A.  Yes,  a  little. 

Q.  What  was  the  direction  of  that?  (  T 
was  more  round  than  the  others. 

Q.  Was  that  of  the  same  character  31 
others  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  those  were  all  the  marks  on  !  ( 
and  head  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  Were  any  of  these  sufficiently  e  ai 
and  deep  to  cause  blood  ?  A.  Nothir  m 
than  a  little  oozing  out  like  perspiratioi 

Q.  Do  wounds  of  this  kind  on  the  fa>  si 
blood  at  the  time  of  event?  A.  Yes;  3 1 
vessels  of  the  skin,  the  capillaries,  w:  tl 
out  a  little  blood;  not  amount  to  much  li 
are  mere  abrasions  ;  get  below  that,  £  i  j 
have  blood  enough. 

Cross-examination. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  there  is 
abrasion  on  each  side  of  the  nose  ?  A  at 
the  side  of  the  nose  and  one  across  the  )  .e. 

Q.  Downward  ?  A.  Yes. 

Q.  One  on  each  side  of  the  forehei ' 
Yes. 


A.  P.  Bachman — Sworn  for  thPr 
secution. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ?  Aim 
turer. 

Q.  Were  you  proprietor  of  the  estabhnit 
where  Watson  was  ? 

Mr.  MORRIS. — It  was  agreed  with  t'  con 
sel,  and  announced  to  your  Honor  bn  uu 
that  only  the  evidence  would  be  off  u  tl 
morning  with  reference  to  the  scratch*  m li 
face  and  forehead.  On  that  annourmu 
and  understanding  I  have  discharge!  ill » 
witnesses,  and  am  not  prepared  to  r  ?t  w 
other  question. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — That  is  the  most  1  oM 
ing  announcement  I  ever  heard.  I  sail  |uiet 
to  the  Court,  in  hearing  of  nobody  it  tl 
counsel  who  stood  by  my  side,  that  th  vo* 
probably  be  all  I  would  want  to  offer,  it  th 
I  did  not  wish  to  be  bound  by  this  frc  0® 
ing  any  other  testimony  I  might  think  irupa 
and  the  Court  will  bear  me  witness  tl  I* 
that. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — Counsel  for  the  disiki 
distinctly  understood  that  this  was  u  0* 
question  to  be  examined. 

Mr.  BRITTON. — The  counsel  now: as  j 
Court  and  seeks  to  take  advantage  of  a'icull 
favor. 

Mr.  MORRIS. — It  is  not  taking  acadni 

tage;  it  is  no  favor. 

The  COURT.— The  District  Attorndiifl 
to  the  Court  he  did  not  want  to  be  ct dinta 
but  that  ho  would  not  extend  his  exai'1^01 


91 


wl  not  excuse  you  from  examining  this 
h;s. 

3  Are  you  proprietor  of  the  establishment  ? 

!S. 

2  Where  Watson  worked?  A.  Yes. 

^  in  the  year  1870  did  you  discharge  the 
felant  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Watson? 

J acted  to.  Does  your  Honor  consider  that 
pd  faith,  on  the  understanding  had  last 

JW 

il  BRITTON. — The  counsel  may  object  to 
■  estion,  but  I  don’t  like  these  remarks. 

SI  MORRIS. — I  object.  That  was  our  ex- 
s  mderstanding,  and  on  that  I  let  our  wit- 

5S0. 

f’  COURT. — Does  this  go  any  further  than 
s  ischarging  of  the  defendant  ? 

SI  BRITTON.— No. 

D  COURT. — Question  admitted, 
i.  discharged  her  at  the  request  of  Mr. 


Watson,  on  March,  1870,  from  the  1st  to  the 
10th. 

Q.  Having  so  discharged  her,  how  soon  did 
she  come  back  to  the  factory  again  ?  A.  She 
got  work  out  of  the  factory.  She  did  not  work 
at  the  factory  at  all  by  the  week  after  that. 

Q.  At  the  time  you  discharged  her  was  Mr. 
Watson  in  the  city?  A.  He  was  out  of  the 
city. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  stay  ?  A.  About  three 
weeks. 

Cross-examined. 

Q.  He  was  up  at  New  Britain,  Connecticut  ? 
A.  No,  sir;  he  was  in  Hartford.  I  did  not  have 
the  New  Britain  machinery  at  that  time.  That 
was  the  Spring  of  1870. 

Q.  Was  he  at  work  at  New  Britain  at  that 
time?  A.  No,  sir. 

Prosecution  eests — Testimony  closed. 


92 


SUMMING  UP  FOR  THE  DEFENSE. 


ADDRESS  OF  MR.  MORRIS.— If  the 
court  please,  and  gentleman  of  the  jury,  I 
congratulate  you  that  we  are  approaching 
so  near  the  close  of  this  important,  and  in 
many  respects,  very  remarkable  case.  And 
I  desire,  in  the  outset,  to  thank  you  on  be¬ 
half  of  my  unfortunate  client  for  the  at¬ 
tention  that  you  have  given  to  the  case 
from  its  commencement,  the  interest  that 
you  have  seemed  to  manifest,  the  attention 
that  you  have  paid  to  the  evidence,  and  to 
all  the  proceedings  that  have  transpired. 
And  I  beg,  gentlemen,  your  indulgence 
while  I  present  my  views  of  the  case  to 
you,  although  it  may  seem,  and  I  have 
no  doubt  it  will  seem  to  some  of  you,  that 
I  may  be  unnecessarily  tedious,  yet,  I  can 
assure  you  that  I  shall  take  much  shorter 
time  in  presenting  this  case  to  you,  than  is 
ordinarily  taken  in  cases  of  this  kind  by 
counsel  for  the  defense,  but  I  feel,  gentle¬ 
men,  that  it  is  my  duty  to  present  this 
case  fully,  to  state  all  the  views  that  I  have 
in  regard  to  the  testimony. 

This,  gentlemen,  is  one  of  the  most  im¬ 
portant  duties  that  you,  as  citizens,  can 
be  called  upon  to  discharge.  You  are  sit¬ 
ting  here  as  jurors.  Upon  your  verdict 
depends  the  question  whether  this  unfortu¬ 
nate  girl  shall  live  or  die.  That  is  the  is¬ 
sue.  You  are  to  determine  that  question, 
and  you  are  to  determine  it  upon  the  evi¬ 
dence  in  this  case,  upon  the  conviction  that . 
that  evidence  carries  to  your  minds.  Shall 
she  live,  and  go  free  from  this  court  with 
the  charitable  blessings  of  all  Christian 
men  and  women,  or  shall  she  be  sent  to  an 
awful  and  ignominious  death  upon  the 
scaffold  ?  That  is  the  issue  involved  in 
this  trial.  Therefore  I  say,  that  you,  as 
citizens,  can  be  called  upon  to  discharge  no 
more  important  or  momentous  duty  than 
that  devolved  upon  you  in  this  trial. 
True,  you  do  not  pronounce  the  sentence 
of  the  law,  and  true  that  responsibility  does 
not  rest  with  you,  yet,  without  your  ver¬ 
dict,  the  sentence  of  the  law  cannot  be 


pronounced,  the  judgment  cannot 
ecu  ted;  so  that  it  comes  back  to  yoi 
have  to  pass  upon  the  question  of 
death. 

I  shall  pass  by,  as  unworthy  of  yc 
tention  or  of  my  consideration  for  oi  i 
ment,  the  suggestion  that  was  thro' 
by  the  prosecution  in  the  opening  •  1 
case,  that  if  there  were  extenuati  i 
cumstances  they  rested  with  anotl 
bunal,  that  that  was  a  question  for  tht  i 
utive  of  the  State  ;  as  though  that  i 
have  any  influence  in  the  determinaa 
which  you  wall  arrive.  You  will  a 
your  verdict  of  guilty  or  not  guilty,  1  vi 
the  Executive  of  the  State  out  of  th  n 
tion,  and  leaving  everything  else oul f I 
question,  except  the  one  tribunal  iw 
own  consciences.  I  shall  have,  b  a 
get  through  with  this  case,  son  hi 
further  to  say  upon  that  subject,  ne 
have  something  further  to  say  wit!  el 
enceto  the  manner  in  which  this  ps« 
tion  has  been  conducted,  and  the  lei 
that  have  been  resorted  to  for  the  j  "pc 
of  taking  that  unfortunate  girl’s  life 
The  District  Attorney,  in  openin  saj 
that  this  is  a  case  of  murder  or  n  oil 
and  declined  to  call  your  attention  >  m 
provisions  of  law  relating  to  other  gw 
of  crime.  We  accept  the  issue:  ea, 
no  middle  ground  in  this  case.  It  i,'ua| 
of  murder  in  the  first  degree  or  nojnflt 
of  any  crime.  But,  gentlemen,  yo  du\ 
is  an  important  one  in  any  othevies 
The  result  of  your  verdict  cannot  Up 4 
have  a  great  influence  either  for  (oJ a 
for  evil.  As  I  have  told  you,  the  life)!  ^ 
unfortunate  prisoner  is  in  your  ham;  th* 
should  be  a  sufficient  consideration^ 
a  sufficient  consideration  to  induc-roul 
give  the  most  careful  consideratio  n  um 
case.  But,  gentlemen,  there  areJOUft 
quences  wrapped  up  in  the  result  <■! 
trial  far  more  momentous  than  thlifafj 
that  unfortunate  girl.  The  ques>u  i 
whether  by  your  verdict  in  this  cat  W*1 


93 


in  is  to  be  sanctioned  in  the  land, 
uannot  escape  the  consequences  if  you 
u  ;that  is  one  of  the  consequences  that 
is  flow  from  a  verdict  of  guilty  in  this 
•,e  I  believe  in  the  old  maxim  as  much 
a?  one,  de  mortuis  nisi  bonum — speak 
t  f  the  dead  unless  you  speak  well  of 
>r  But  we  would  be  recreant  to  our 
b  unworthy  of  our  profession,  if  in  a 
ie  f  this  kind  involving  the  life  of  our 
n.  and  the  question  as  to  how  and  why 
i  i  placed  in  this  position  involved  in 
■  ,se,  we  should  refrain  from  speaking 
i  It  is  a  fact  in  this  case,  and  as  a 
tire  must  deal  with  it  and  we  must 
e  it. 

Ifir,  gentlemen,  it  is  not  necessary  that 
hild  say  anything  more,  indeed  it  was 
i  ecessary  that  I  should  say  anything 
inress  upon  your  minds  the  important 
tj  that  now  devolves  upon  you.  You 
3  fully  conscious  of  that  as  I  am  ; 
i  lave  already  weighed  it  over  in  your 
u  Qinds  ;  you  have  reflected  upon  the 
dice  in  this  ca^e  as  it  has  been  elicited 
rr  the  witnesses,  and  I  believe  that 
rman  in  that  panel  now  has  made  up 
ind,  and  that  nothing  I  can  say  will 
ie  or  alter  it.  Yet,  it  is  my  duty  to 
!Sit  the  case  to  you.  The  District  At- 
nr  in  his  opening  remarks  sought  to 
pi3s  upon  you  the  idea  that  he  had  no 
s  ial  feeling  in  this  prosecution,  that 
is  here  simply  in  the  discharge  of  an 
c  l  duty  devolved  upon  him  by  virtue 
1  oath  of  office;  and  I  ask  you,  right 
e.n  the  outset,  which  side,  up  to  this 
nnt,  has  manifested  the  most  feeling 
d  case  ?  I  wish  you  to  carry  that  in 
uninds  in  this  case,  and  all  through 
3  se,  because  the  District  At1  orney  has 
osing  argument,  and  he  will  again 
impress  upon  your  minds  that  he 
* :  1  feeling  in  this  case,  that  he  appears 
e  efore  you  in  obedience  to  a  duty  im- 
ie  upon  him  by  virtue  of  his  official 
a  >n.  Remember  the  suggestion  that 
o  make  to  you — which  side,  up  to  this 
u  nt,  has  manifested  the  most  feeling 
g  3n  evidence  of  being  actuated  by  de- 
3  r  victory.  What  feeling  I  may  mani¬ 


fest  before  I  get  through,  you  will  pardon, 
because  I  shall  speak  asil  feel.  I  shall  make 
no  attempt  at  rhetoric  or  oratory,  I  should 
utterly  fail  if  I  did.  I  was  not  educated  in 
that  school — I  have  not  had  the  advan¬ 
tages  thatfcflt  one  for  any  such'station ;  what 
I  say  will  be  as  I  feel,  you  may  be  the 
judges. 

But  I  wish  in  the  first  place  to  impress 
this  fact  upon  your  minds,  and  the  follow¬ 
ing  counsel.  I  will  venture  to  say  that  in 
the  empanneling  of  this  jury,  more  chal¬ 
lenges  were  made  by  the  prosecution  than 
has  ever  been  made  by  the  prosecution  in 
any  case,  involving  life,  in  this  State  be¬ 
fore.  It  was  not  we  that  objected,  except 
in  a  few  instances.  We  did  not  ex¬ 
haust  half  the  challenges  that  the  law 
gives  to  the  accused,  and  those  were 
excused  because  of  the  suggestions  of  my 
associates  and  myself  without  giving  any 
reason.  But  the  prosecution  come  in 
here  and  say  :  “We  are  the  people  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  we  are  prosecuting 
this  case  as  the  people,”  and  they  walk 
into  this  Court,  called  the  people,  and  set 
four  of  the  people  aside  from  sitting  in 
that  panel,  without  giving  any  reason  or 
any  excuse  for  so  doing,  when  those  four 
men  have  answered  the  questions  that  show 
they  are  competent  to  discharge  the  duty 
of  jurors.  The  prosecution  in  this  case 
have  exercised  a  power  not  possessed  by 
the  Queen  of  England.  She  cannot  go  in 
Court,  through  her  representatives,  and 
set  a  subject  aside  without  cause.  There 
is  one  State  in  this  Union  where  it  may  be 
done,  but  it  is  an  anomaly  in  the  adminis¬ 
tration  of  criminal  law  and  ought  to  be 
done  away  with.  We  didn’t  ask  the  ordi¬ 
nary  and  usual  questions  in  impanneling 
the  jury,  except  in  a  few  instances  : 
“Have  you  read  of  this  case?  Yes: 
Have  you  formed  and  expressed  an  opin¬ 
ion  with  reference  to  it  ?  Yes.”  The  law 
says  that  you  are  incompetent.  That  was 
not  the  jury  we  wanted.  My  questions,  as 
you  will  bear  me  witness,  were  :  “Have 
you  any  feeling  or  prejudice  toward  the 
accused  that  will  prevent  you  from  going 
in  that  jury  box  and  rendering  an  impar- 


94 


tial  verdict  according  to  the  evidence  ? 
No.”  You  are  the  juror  that  I  want.  I 
did  not  care  what  your  impressions  were. 
If  upon  your  consciences  you  could  swear 
that  you  could  sit  there,  and  render  a  true 
verdict  according  to  the  evidence,  unpreju¬ 
diced,  that  is  all  I  desired.  That  is  all  I 
ask.  Was  it  so  with  the  prosecution  in 
this  case  ?  Oh,  no.  “  Challenge  renewed 
for  principal  cause  :  Have  you  read  of 
this  case  ?  Yes.  Formed  or  expressed  an 
opinion  ?  Yes.  Have  that  opinion  still  ? 
Yes.  Step  aside.  ”  It  never  has  occurred 
to  my  knowledge  before, — the  people  be¬ 
coming  in  reality  the  challengers,  instead 
of  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner.  The 
people  come  in  court  and  say,  we  are  the 
parties  and  we  are  prosecuting,  and  yet 
they  set  a  portion  of  the  people  aside  with¬ 
out  reason,  or  without  cause,  and  without 
excuse.  For  what  ?  I  don’t  believe  that 
the  course  pursued  by  the  prosecution  in 
this  case  has  been  the  deliberate  judgment 
of  the  prosecution,  but  there  are  influ¬ 
ences,  as  you  will  see  before  I  get  through, 
that  have  been  spurring  up,  and  goading 
on  in  this  case. 

But,  gentlemen,  District  Attorneys,  I 
think,  are  very  much  like  other  men;  they 
have  their  feelings  precisely  as  other  coun¬ 
sel.  It  makes  no  difference  how  they  feel 
or  t!  ink  they  feel,  the  fact  is  that  they 
have  just  as  strong  an  interest  as  any  coun¬ 
sel  feels — the  interest  of  success.  They 
don’t  leave  that  feeling  behind  when  they 
go  into  that  office.  And  again  I  appeal  to 
you  for  the  justification  of  what  I  say,  to 
the  proceedings  all  through  this  trial,  from 
beginning  to  end;  technical  objections  in¬ 
terposed  here,  technical  objections  inter¬ 
posed  there,  controversies  with  the  court, 
and,  I  almost  imagined,  on  one  occasion, 
that  the  court  was  going  to  be  overruled 
entirely.  But  there  has  been  this  continual 
conflict  from  beginning  to  end,  and  I  ask 
you  if  that  is  not  an  unusual  spectacle, 
where  a  person  is  placed  upon  trial  for  life, 
when  the  judge  who  sits  upon  the  bench, 
calm  and  cool,  not  influenced  by  any  feel¬ 
ing  such  as  influences  counsel  on  either 
side,  when  the  judge  makes  a  suggestion 


ought  not  that  to  be  sufficient  for  the  a 
cution?  Ought  they  to  step  one  jj 
breadth,  if  they  could,  beyoi  d  the  si>i 
tion,  against  the  life  of  a  helpless  ere  fl 
It  is  not  the  duty  of  the  prosecut  i<| 
strain  anything  against  the  life  of  a  lo 
creature,  and  I  say  that  in  this  cas<  a 
ters  have  been  strained  from  the  beg  i 
to  the  end  of  this  prosecution.  Dor 
recollect  when  this  unfortunate  beir  a 
upon  the  stand  what  an  ordeal  she  p  a 
She  restrained  her  feelings  as  mu  i 
possible,  but  it  was  with  over  and  <  -i 
peated  suggestions  coming  from  cm 
that  she  should.  But  you  could  he  tl 
words,  half  choked,  as  they  came  t 
her  mouth. 

And  when  I  stopped  the  examinat  ii 
chief,  and  the  District  Attorney  had  a 
examined  her,  and  then  when  I  ar  i 
continue  the  examination,  counsel  go 
and  most  vehemently  objects  to  the  01 
tion,  and  argues  for  a  considerable  t  e 
the  court  that  I  having  concluded  ti< 
amination  in  chief,  and  he  having  u 
examined,  that  I  should  be  bound  b;  hi 
foreclosed,  and  not  permitted  to  pun *t 
examination  further.  That  is  a  teaii 
rule  of  law,  gentlemen,  resting  in  tl'd 
cretion  of  the  court.  But  no  judge  t 
land  would  ever  apply  such  a  rule  tsi 
a  case.  Such  a  rule  would  not  be  a *li 
among  the  savages.  Let  us  see  iff, 
there  is  no  feeling  in  this  prosecutii;i 
us  see  if  this  is  disinterested,  a  dee 
elicit  all  the  facts,  a  desire  to  get  t 
whole  truth  and  to  lay  all  the  facts  'f< 
you,  because  good  faith  requires  tit 
counsel  upon  both  sides.  We  ha 
right  to  conceal;  it  is  our  duty  to  1 1 
facts  come  out  to  you,  all  the  facts  ril 
out  any  attempt  to  conceal. 

Suppose  now,  I  ask  you,  that  I  ha  * 
wrong;  suppose  that  I  had  exhaust  i 
examination  in  chief  before  I  stoppi ;  i 
mit  that  for  the  sake  of  argument,  arss 
pose  that  I  had  subjected  myself  1 
technical  rule  that  would  exclude  t  fi 
ther  facts  in  the  case.  Now,  I  ask  ;u 
candid  men,  called  upon  to  decid  ti 
case  according  to  your  conscience  si 


95 


s«  that  fact,  do  you  think  it  would  be 
■  uty  of  the  District  Attorney,  if  he 
J  take  advantage  of  a  technical  rule 
e;lnde  the  facts  from  you  and  to  hang 
it  fill  for  a  mistake?  I  mean,  conced- 
y  to  be  a  mistake.  Do  you  think  that 
hs  the  duty  of  the  prosecution?  The 
n  ng  out  of  that  testimony  in  this  case 
3ab  blood;  and  I  say,  and  I  will  stand 
i  that  it  was  an  unfair  attempt  on  the 
rt»f  the  prosecution. 

B ;  go  further,  gentlemen.  As  the  coun- 
1 1  timated  in  his  vehement  speech  to  the 
in  in  behalf  of  excluding  this  further 
itiiony,  that  it  was  a  design  of  mine, 
pase  that  it  was  a  trick  of  mine  ;  I  will 
t  in  the  most  favorable  light  to  the 
mention.  Suppose  that  we,  the  coun- 
l,  ad  consulted  together,  and  we  had 
ido  ourselves,  “  well,  now,  we  will  stop 
dee  how  far  the  prosecution  will  go  in 
isxamination,  and  then  we  will  resume 
”  i  Suppose  that  is  so  ;  take  it  for  grant- 
.  It  would  be  perfectly  legitimate  for  us 
d  it,  and  perfectly  proper.  But  say  it 
a  rick,  say  that  we  did  that  as  a  trick, 
•r  well,  gentlemen,  do  you  think  it  is 
e  uty  of  the  prosecution  to  hang  an  un- 
rtiate  being  because  the  counsel  have 
e: guilty  of  a  trick  of  that  kind?  Do 
•u'bink  so?  Do  you  think  that  it  is  the 
it  of  the  District  Attorney  to  shut  out 
icnce  that  might  go  to  her  benefit,  and 
lag  her  ?  Do  you  think  so?  He  rep- 
sets  the  people,  at  least  in  theory.  Do 
>u;hink  now  that  that  was  the  duty  of 
le  vrosecution  in  this  case,  to  seek,  be- 
u  we  hadn’t  exhausted  our  examina- 
ui  to  close  the  mouth  of  this  unfortu- 
it>  prisoner  and  to  keep  back  facts  that 
er  due  to  you  in  order  to  enable  you  to 
>ri  a  correct  judgment  in  reference  to 
iif  ase?  Suppose  the  prosecution  knew 
t  witness  who  was  familiar  with  facts, 
h  i,  if  disclosed  in  a  trial,  would  be  a 
in  lete  vindication  of  the  defendant 
?a  st  any  charge,  or  a  charge  of  this  kind. 
O'  supposing  that  the  counsel  for  the 
ec  e  knew  that  there  were  facts,  and  that 
ar  is  that  could  prove  the  facts  that  would 
6  complete  vindication  of  the  prisoner. 


what  do  you  think  would  be  the  duty  of 
the  prosecution  under  such  circumstances? 
The  person  who  represents  the  people  is 
supposed  to  protect  the  innocent  as  well  as 
to  punish  the  guilty— a  violent  supposition 
in  many  cases.  But  what  do  you  think, 
under  such  circumstances,  would  be  the 
duty  of  the  prosecution?  Why,  to  put  the 
witnesses  upon  the  stand.  In  this  very 
court-room  I  recollect  a  case  where  a 
person  was  put  upon  trial  for  life,  and 
evidence  and  facts  were  in  possession 
of  the  prosecution  which  were  strongly  in 
favor  of  the  accused.  They  were  suggest¬ 
ed  to  his  Honor  upon  the  bench,  and  there 
was  no  dispute  or  question  between  the 
Court  and  the  prosecution  as  to  what  was 
the  duty;  the  witnesses  were  put  upon  the 
stand,  and  the  prisoner  went  free. 

This  is  not  a  case  of  blood-hunting.  This 
is  not  a  fox  chase,  this  is  a  court  of  justice; 
here  is  where  we  are  supposed  to  elicit  the 
facts  and  the  evidence.  The  people  come 
here  in  their  majesty  through  their  repre¬ 
sentatives.  Is  it  right  tliat  they  should 
seek  to  take  advantage  of  any  technicality? 
Is  it  right  that  they  should  seek  to  take 
the  life  of  one  of  the  people,  their  citizen? 
Is  it  right  that  they  should  seek  to  exclude 
testimony  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  im¬ 
possible  for  the  people  to  contradict  it? 
Is  that  your  idea,  gentlemen,  of  what  is 
right  and  proper?  I  make  these  remarks 
to  you  because  I  know  what  will  be  said  to 
you  in  the  closing  argument  in  this  case. 
You  will  be  impressed  with  the  idea  that 
there  is  no  feeling,  and  therefore  I  have 
deemed  it  my  duty  to  make  the  sugges¬ 
tions  that  I  have  made.  I  leave  it  to  your 
calm  judgment  to  say  whether  I  am  right 
or  not.  You  are  the  final  arbiters  in  this 
case  after  counsel  are  through  and  the  court 
shall  have  given  the  case  to  you.  But  I 
beg  of  you,  in  advance,  do  not  say  that  the 
counsel  for  the  defense  are  laboring  simply 
for  victory,  and  that  the  counsel  for  the 
people  is  disinterested  and  has  no  feeling, 
and  therefore  we  must  rely  upon  what  he 
says,  when,  from  the  beginning  of  the  case 
to  the  close  of  the  testimony,  all  the  feeling 
and  all  the  anxiety  that  has  been  manifest- 


96 


ed,  or  if  not  all  the  anxiety,  all  the  feeling 
has  been  manifested  by  the  other  side.  So, 
at  least,  I  think  you  will  conclude  that  in 
that  respect  the  defense  are  entitled  to 
some  consideration. 

Now',  gentlemen,  what  is  the  case?  The 
counsel  read  to  you  the  definition  of  homi¬ 
cide  or  of  murder  at  common  law'.  This 
indictment  is  found  under  this  provision  of 
the  statute: 

Such  killing,  unless  it  be  manslaughter,  or 
excusable  or  justifiable  homicide,  as  hereinafter 
provided,  shall  be  murder  in  the  first  degree,  in 
the  following  cases :  first,  vrhen  perpetrated 
from  a  premeditated  design  to  effect  the  death 
of  the  person  killed,  or  of  any  human  being. 

That  is  the  sub-division  under  which 
this  indictment  is  found.  When  perpetra¬ 
ted  from  a  premeditated  design  to  effect 
the  death  of  the  person  killed,  or  of  any 
human  being.  Now  there  is  another  pro¬ 
vision  of  the  law  to  which  I  will  call  your 
attention. 

Such  homicide  is  also  justifiable  when  com¬ 
mitted  by  any  person  iu  either  of  the  following 
cases  :  first,  when  resisting  any  attempt  to  mur¬ 
der  such  person,  or  to  commit  any  felony  upon 
him  or  her,  or  upon  or  in  any  dwelling-house 
in  which  such  person  shall  be  ;  or  second,  when 
committed  in  the  lawful  defense  of  such  person, 
or  of  his  or  her  husband,  wife,  parent,  child, 
master,  mistress,  or  servant,  w  hen  there  shall 
be  reasonable  grounds  to  apprehend  a  design  to 
commit  a  felony,  or  to  do  some  great  personal 
injury,  and  there  shall  be  imminent  danger  of 
such  design  being  accomplished. 

Those  are  all  the  provisions  of  the 
statute  that  I  deem  it  necessary  to  call 
your  attention  to,  with  reference  to  this 
case.  My  remarks  will  be  addressed  par¬ 
ticularly  to  the  main  issue  in  this  case,  and 
that  is  :  is  this  a  case  of  murder  in  the  first 
degree  or  not  ?  Well,  gentlemen,  I  think 
that  your  minds  have  anticipated  all  that  I 
may  say  upon  that.  I  think  the  conclu¬ 
sion  arrived  at  in  the  mind  of  every  one 
who  heard  the  testimony  was  but  one  way 
when  the  prosecution  rested  their  case, 
for,  as  I  said  then,  they  failed  to  prove  a 
single  element  of  murder.  There  was  some 
slight  testimony  that  justified  the  Court  in 
sending  the  case  to  you.  But  I  say  they 
did  not  prove  an  element. 

There  is  au other  provision  of  the  statute 
to  which  I  will  call  your  attention  it  reads 
ns  follows  : 


No  act  done  by  a  person  in  a  state  of  m  mi 
can  be  punished  as  an  offense,  and  no  i 
person  can  be  tried  and  sentenced  to  an;  ( 
ishment  or  be  punished  for  any  crime  or  <  j 
while  he  continues  in  that  state. 

The  District  Attorney,  in  his  opem 
alluded  to  that  part  of  the  statute,  altl  q 
not  reading  it,  and  he  alluded  to  the  « 
tion  of  insanity,  in  referring  to  the  q 
mon  law  definition  of  murder,  that  it  i 
be  perpetrated  by  a  person  of  sound  i 
and  memory  and  discretion  ;  so  thsll 
defense  in  this  case  had  been  fully  a  id 
pated  and  the  District  Attorney  was  ;  y 
of  what  our  defense  would  be.  Upoibi! 
subject,  I  shall  have  something  to  say  tit- 
after. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  will  bear  in  ul 
the  language  of  the  Statute,  becaust  hi 
is  important,  as  the  Court  will  tell  y  tl 
killing  is  not  murder.  It  may  not  or  H 
justifiable,  but  there  are  cases  wherfld 
taking  of  life  would  be  the  highest  tfyl 
that  could  be  imposed  upon  you, ji 
where,  should  you  fail  to  do  it,  you  udl 
be  a  miscreant.  It  must  be  so  comnted 
from  a  premeditated  desigu  ;  and  i  ent 
clearly  formed  to  do  the  act,  capac  it 
the  time  to  comprehend  the  nature  o  the 
act,  and  a  free  control  of  the  will,  ar  ab¬ 
solutely  necessary  elements  in  the  at 
mission  of  such  a  crime.  It  must  b(  re- 
meditated,  thought  over,  reflected  uu, 
distinctly  formed  in  the  mind  beforilhe 
act  is  committed  ;  and  when  the  inte  ii 
thus  formed,  when  it  takes  a  definite  m. 
and  shape  and  becomes  a  fixed  fact  i  the 
mind,  then  the  time  that  is  necessa  to 
brood  over  it,  or  think  over  it  is  w  illy 
immaterial.  It  makes  no  difference  o* 
short  a  time  intervenes  between  than 
and  the  intent,  provided  the  intent  isrell 
formed,  fixed,  definite,  absolute,  ceiin. 
Then  it  is  immaterial  how  soon  thad 
follows  the  intent,  but  that  mustbefoied 
in  the  mind,  the  mind  must  under-no 
that  it  must  have  that  purpose  and  d'g- 
in  view,  it  must  be  the  intent  clrjr 
formed  before  the  mind  moves  the  ar  to 
the  commission  of  the  act. 

Now’  the  language  of  murder  at  coni-on 
law  is,  as  correctly  quoted  by  the  Dhiot 
Attorney,  where  a  person  of  sound  met  r? 


97 


iscretion  kills  a  reasonable  creature, 
ing  and  in  the  King’s  peace,  or  as  it 
l  be  expressed  here,  in  the  peace  of 
Commonwealth,  with  malice  afore- 
ht  either  express  or  implied.  That 
t  the  law  now,  as  the  Court  will  ttll 
The  statute  has  changed  this  defini- 
i  s  regards  implied  malice.  There  is 
ich  thing  now.  The  words  of  the 
ie  are,  “from  a  premeditated  design 
Eect  the  death.”  Malice  prepense  of 
jmmon  law  might  exist  without  an 
i  to  kill,  and  the  killing  would  be 
nr.  That  is  not  the  law  now.  This 
i  changed  by  the  statute,  an  intent 
a  formed  to  take  life  is  the  very 
lie  of  the  crime,  an  intent  premedita- 
hought  over,  reflected  upon,  I  care 
]>w  short  the  time  may  be,  so  long  as 
ind  has  arrived  at  that  condition, 
t  here  is  in  the  mind  that  formed, 
d  intent  of  purpose.  Then  the  period 
rlection  is  wholly  immaterial.  Bat 
rmust  be  that  ;  it  is  the  very  essence 
k  crime,  and  no  killing  is  murder  un¬ 
iat  condition  of  the  mind  exists,  and 
eithat  condition  of  the  mind  is  proven 
tl  prosecution.  True,  gentlemen,  we 
n  tell  what  a  person  is  thinking  about  • 
on  know  what  you  are  thinking  about 
s  oment  ;  except  we  know  from  men’s 
o  i,  their  appearance,  their  looks — and 
QC!'  from  that  that  you  are  thinking  of 
•ongs  that  that  poor  creature  has 
Ceiil.  We  judge  of  men’s  minds,  of 
ir  ntent  and  purposes,  by  their  acts, 
>b  r  actions,  what  they  say,  what  they 
ai  how  they  look.  The  prosecution 
land  to  show  these  facts  in  some 
■date  way  that  is  recognized  by  law, 
ie  .aimer  that  will  convince  the  mind 
htury,  that  will  be  a  basis  from  which 
W  can  draw  the  conclusion  that  that 
tl  intent. 

k<  oere  act  of  killing  don’t  prove  mur- 
■  |f  you  see  a  man  deliberately  raise  a 
dy,  discharge  it,  and  the  man  falls 
d,  ru  prove  those  facts,  and  the  law 
ifi  the  inference  that  he  intended  to 
Tiy  ?  Because  the  act  was  deliber- 
;  i  was  done  with  a  deliberate  purpose 


and  sedate  mind,  and  without  any  apparent- 
justification,  so  far  as  could  be  observed 
by  the  person  who  saw  it.  That  would  be 
a  case  of  homicide  from  which  the  jury 
would  have  the  right  to  draw  the  inference 
that  the  intent  existed  to  take  the  life. 
But,  gentlemen,  supposing  that  occurred 
in  a  room;  nobody  heard  it,  nobody  saw  it: 
suppose  you  heard  a  noise  there  in  the 
room  as  if  a  struggle  were  taking  place, 
and  you  rush  in  ;  you  hear  the  report  of  a 
pistol,  and  you  find  a  man  lying  dead  upon 
the  floor  ;  is  that  murder  ?  Oh,  no,  no  ! 
You  infer  from  those  facts  that  that  man 
was  shot  by  the  person  then  in  the  room, 
because  there  is  no  other  person  in  there  ; 
you  infer  he  is  shot.  Your  inference 
stops  there  upon  that  state  of  facts,  and 
you  cannot  infer  anything  else.  Infer  that 
he  intended  to  kill,  from  what  fact  ?  Infer 
that  it  was  not  justifiable,  from  what  fact  ? 
Do  you  know  that  the  man  who  was  shot 
had  not  got  him  by  the  throat,  and  his  life 
was  not  in  peril  ?  From  what  fact  will 
you  draw  the  inference  ?  How  will  you, 
in  such  a  state  of  facts  as  that,  infer  that 
it  was  not  justifiable  ?  Why,  you  could 
not ;  the  law  would  not  permit  you.  You 
simply  infer  the  killing,  that  is  all.  You 
infer  that  from  the  circumstances.  That 
is  not  murder.  Blackstone  expresses  the 
idea  in  this  way — and  no  other  author 
could  express  himself  as  clearly  as  he — in 
speaking  of  murder  :  “  Which  formed  de¬ 
sign,”  says  Blackstone,  “is  evinced  by 
external  circumstances  discovering  that 
inward  intention,  as  lying  in  wait,  antece¬ 
dent  occurrences,  formed  grudges,  and 
concerted  schemes  to  do  him  some  bodily 
harm.”  That  is  murder,  as  Blackstone 
states.  Says  Lord  Hale  :  “No  man  can 
commit  a  crime  unless  he  has  command  of 
his  own  will,”  and  the  Court  of  Appeals 
have  decided  that  frenzy,  mere  frenzy,  is  a 
ground  of  exculpation.  Where  there  is  no 
discernment  there  is  no  choice,  and  where 
there  is  no  choice  there  is  no  act  of  the 
will ;  and  unless  the  will  and  the  act  com¬ 
bine,  or  the  will  precede  the  act,  there  is 
no  crime  of  murder.  The  will  must  act ; 
it  must  be  the  free  act  and  volition  of  the 


98 


■will ;  the  will  must  guide  the  arm,  and  the 
will  must  be  under  the  control  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual.  Unless  it  is,  it  is  not  murder. 
Would  you  attach  culpability  to  a  machine? 
Does  Deity  attach  responsibility  to  any 
being,  bereft,  from  any  cause,  of  the  con¬ 
trol  of  the  mind  that  is  the  gift  of  the 
Deity  ?  What  is  the  mind  ?  Who  will 
define  it  ?  Dissect  the  brain,  wull  you  dis¬ 
cover  it  ?  No  ;  it  is  the  soul,  the  immor¬ 
tal  spirit,  that  allies  us  to  heaven. 

Every  man  of  common  understanding 
comprehends  what  we  mean  wrhen  we 
talk  of  murder.  Every  man  has  paint¬ 
ed  the  murderer  in  his  own  mind. 
From  the  day  that  presaged  woe  to 
the  human  race,  when  the  first  man  bom 
of  woman  became  a  murderer,  that  image 
has  been  indelibly  fixed  in  the  human 
mind.  We  can  see  the  person  ;  in  his  eye 
the  light  of  love  and  benevolence  and  mer¬ 
cy  has  forever  been  blotted  out.  In  his 
heart  the  fires  of  hate,  of  envy,  and  malice 
forever  glow  with  freshness.  In  him  there 
is  no  mercy,  and  like  the  tiger  he  waits  for 
his  prey  and  strikes  his  unsuspecting  foe 
in  the  dark,  either  from  motives  of  avarice 
or  revenge,  and  then  seeks  his  escape.  In 
the  Louvre,  in  Paris,  before  the  Commune, 
there  was  a  picture  by  some  of  the  great 
masters ;  it  represented  the  murderer. 
There  was  Cain  sitting  in  the  chair,  his 
mind  fixed  as  if  intent  on  some  hellish  pur¬ 
pose,  and  the  little  child  prattling  about 
his  knee  is  brushed  away  ;  the  club  that 
is  to  do  the  deed  lies  the^e  rough 
hewn ;  that  is  murder.  The  murder  is 
committed  in  the  heart  already.  What 
remains  to  be  done  is  the  simple  act. 
Take  some  cases  that  have  occurred  in  our 
own  city.  Take  the  case  of  Skidmore, 
who  lay  in  wait  with  an  air  gun  and  shot 
Mr.  Carr  at  night  for  money.  Take  the 
case  of  Gonzales  and  Pelissier,  who  decoyed 
the  unfortunate  Don  Jose  Garcia  Otero 
from  New  York  on  a  dark  night  to  a  remote 
spot  in  the  City  Park,  and  there  brutally 
murdered  him  for  his  money.  These  are 
murderers,  and  the  acts  they  did  are  mur¬ 
der,  and  they  would  have  you  believe  that 
here,  now,  we  are  trying  an  assassin,  such 


as  the  human  mind  has  painted,  su  i 
the  law  describes,  and  such  as  every  -  ;i 
you  understands.  Oh,  gentlemen,  In 
I  get  through  you  won’t  think  of  s  h 
question  ;  you  don’t  nowr.  No,  gentl  a 
we  are  not  engaged  in  trying  a  murcai 
although  I  have  no  doubt  the  prose<ai 
will  attempt  to  paint  her  as  black  as  ;  in 
gia  or  a  Hecuba.  We  are  engaged  ifaj 
ing  no  murderess.  That  poor  beinj  rb 
has  been  pursued  from  the  time  she  n 
child  fifteen  years  of  age,  but.a  chil<  d 
don’t  sit  before  you  to-day  as  a  mure  a 
I  know  that  when  the  tjjne  comes  y<  vi 
be  but  too  glad  to  lift'  the  hand  thi  ao> 
oppresses  her,  and  say  to  her,  in  oi 
name  go  free,  and  you  will  give  hei  'a 
blessing.  Let  her  not  suffer  this  onl 
sion  a  single  day  longer,  but  op<  ft 
prison  bars,  as  you  will,  and  let  !r| 
free. 

What  is  the  prosecution  ?  What  aft 
they  proven  in  this  case  ?  We  oM 
when  they  called  their  witnesses,  to  ini 
that  the  deceased  came  to  his  death  ini 
a  pistol-shot  wound  in  the  hands  ft 
prisoner ;  that  she,  in  company  wi  ft 
brother,  purchased  this  pistol  along  boa 
the  first  of  Jamiary.  What  monb» 
they  proven  ?  The  counsel  then  co  eftj 
that  something  more  than  that  m  t  b 
proven.  There  must  be  a  motiv<  ft 
don’t  admit  that  she  intended  to  kil  01 
no;  we  don’t  admit  that.  “Youkftl 
admit  that  she  had  a  motive  ?”  Oh 
don’t  admit  that ;  wo  admit  that  shrift 
him.  Well,  then,  we  must  pro  vets 
things.  Have  they  proven  them  ? Id 
you  if  the  counsel,  in  his  opening  idrft 
to  you,  alluded  to  any  motive.  I.  yH 
ever  hear,  in  a  case  of  murder,  of  Ra 
trict  Attorney  coming  into  court  ai  »ft 
ing  a  conviction,  and  opening  his  se  I 
the  jury  without  suggesting  that  thp*ft 
accused  had  any  motive  for  com  ittiaj 
the  act  ?  And  yet  I  submit  to  you  ml* 
this  case  there  has  not  been  a  moth  sflf 
gested.  But  I  shall  have  somethin*)  <*) 
upon  that  subject  hereafter.  I  km  it  * 
dangerous  ground  for  the  prosecuo&l 
tread  on.  I  know  they  desire  to  a  id 11 


99 


vhen  they  attempt  to  avoid  Scylla  they 
iirect  upon  Charybdis,  and  I  care  not 
{h  horn  of  the  dilemma  they  take, 
notive  ?  Oh,  yes ;  the  counsel  may 
jin  the  end,  when  he  comes  to  sum  up 
ju,  that  there  was  a  motive  ;  and  as  he 
ihe  last  speech,  I  imagine  that  that  is 
ceason  that  he  didn’t  communicate  it 
;  u  in  the  beginning,  So,  before  I  get 
ugh  with  my  argument,  I  will  tell  you 
;  I  think  he  will  say  to  you  on  that 
set. 

/ill,  they  put  their  witnesses  upon  the 
t  ;  they  attempt  to  get  up  a  little  stage 
i ,  but  it  was  very  badly  arranged  ;  the 
iry  didn’t  work  well  at  all.  They 
1 1  upon  the  stand  the  person  who  sold 
iistol ;  that  we  didn’t  deny;  that  her 
i  er  was  with  her,  but  they  called  him 
3  the  stand  and  asked  him  what  bis 
i  ess  was,  said,  “  Did  you  ever  see  that 
t  before  ?”  We  admitted  that  it  was 
'  isvolver  ;  we  did  not  dispute  it.  “  Did 
iver  see  that  before  ?”  “  Tes  ;  by  a 

r  upon  it.”  We  didn’t  dispute  it  at 
;  here  is  no  question  about  that,  Mr. 
sict  Attorney;  we  don’t  make  any. 
):  you  sell  her  that  ?”  “Yes.”  “What 
k  ”  “Two  or  three  weeks  ago.”  We 
1  dispute  that ;  that  is  just  what  we 
1  and  the  witness  leaves  the  stand 
a  vas  done  for  a  little  stage  effect  ;  they 
a  d  to  call  the  witness  upon  the  stand 
l  ?k  what  his  business  was,  and  then 
'3  3  the  pistol.  “  Did  you  ever  see  that 
:o; ? ”  “Yes.”  “Did  you  ever  see 
>  isoner?”  “Yes.”  “Did  you  sell 
"at?”  “Yes.”  Hand  it  over  to  the 
y  What  an  effect !  Evidently  the 
lEil  is  not  up  in  arranging  scenes. 

V  have  admitted  those  facts  ;  now, 
atlse  do  they  prove  ?  Mr.  Pixley  says 
■t  rhen  he  went  out  there  that  this 
seer’s  brother  came  down  there,  and 
o  ng  his  hand  back  towards  his  sister, 
s.‘I  told  you  not  to  do  it.”  I  will 
>wpou  before  I  get  through  with  this 
e  jiat  there  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in 
□d  upon  that  you  won’t  have  any 


it, 


litSion.  What  else  do  they  prove  ? 
eS5  roved  by  Miss  Curley  that  she  was 


standing  by  the  door  there,  knocking  or 
kicking  at  the  door,  and  told  her  to  go  in, 
and  after  she  said  that  she  was  recalled 
yesterday,  and  said  th»t  the  prisoner  said 
that  she  had  shot  him.  Well,  we  don’t 
deny  that.  We  haven’t  denied  that.  We 
admitted  that,  and  offered  to  admit  it  in 
the  first  place.  That  has  never  been  any 
issue  in  this  case  ;  not  at  all. 

What  else  have  they  proven  ?  They 
have  proven  by  Captain  Woglom  that  she 
made  a  statement  around  at  the  station 
house,  and  I  beg  of  you  to  bear  Captain 
Woglom’s  statement  in  mind — take  it  into 
consideration.  She  made  some  statements 
around  there  to  Captain  Woglom.  Do  you 
recollect  what  they  were  ?  Take  them  all. 
Does  that  show  murder,  her  statement 
made  to  Captain  Woglom  ?  Is  there  the 
first  element  of  murder  in  the  statement 
made  to  him  ?  What  was  it  ?  Why,  he 
had  seduced  her.  Now,  this  is  their  testi¬ 
mony,  not  ours  ;  this  is  what  they  proved; 
this  is  their  case,  that  he  had  seduced  her, 
that  he  had  followed  her  from  place  to 
place  ;  she  had  tried  to  get  rid  of  him,  and 
she  could  not  get  rid  of  him.  This  is 
their  testimony  ;  this  is  the  testimony  that 
they  offer,  and  they  ask  you  upon  such  tes¬ 
timony  as  this  to  say  that  the  prisoner  is 
guilty  of  murder.  They  proved  this.  This 
is  their  witness,  this  is  their  testimony  : 
“  He  has  been  the  ruination  of  me,”  they 
proved  by  another  witness  as  her  expres¬ 
sion.  Followed  her,  dogged  her  about, 
ruined  her.  She  could  not  get  rid  of  him ; 
“persecuted  her,”  that  they  say.  That  is 
their  testimony,  that  is  their  case. 

What  more  have  they  proved  ?  The 
sergeant,  Bunce,  testified  to  some  state¬ 
ments  that  she  made  when  she  went  in  to 
him,  very  similar  to  those  made  to  Captain 
Woglom.  But  there  is  another  officer  by 
the  name  of  Langdon,  a  detective.  I 
have  reserved  him  for  another  branch  of 
my  remarks,  and  I  leave  him  for  the  pre¬ 
sent. 

Now  I  ask  you,  gentltmen,  if  I  have  not 
fairly  suggested  to  you  the  evidence  for 
the  prosecution  ?  Do  you  think  it  is 
murder  ?  They  prove  that  this  man 


100 


seduced  her  when  she  was  but  a  child  ; 
she  is  not  much  more  than  a  child  yet. 
You  have  daughters,  some  of  you ;  I  am 
sure  you  have.  I  hope  you  all  have;  I 
hope  that  you  have  daughters  of  the  age 
that  this  child  was  when  this  great  mis¬ 
fortune  overtook  her.  How  do  you  look 
upon  them,  gentlemen?  As  women,  with 
their  minds  and  their  judgments  formed, 
prepared  to  enter  into  a  contest  with  a 
man  of  mature  age?  Do  you  so  regard 
them?  Oh,  no!  oh,  no!  You  regard  them 
as  children,  they  are  children  fifteen  years 
of  age. 

They  have  proven  that  this  man,  then, 
accomplished  her  ruin,  and  pursued  her 
day  after  day,  and  persecuted  her,  and  to 
use  her  expression,  “She  could  not  get 
rid  of  him.”  That  is  their  testimony. 
They  come  in  Court — great  God!  —  and 
prove  by  their  own  testimony  that  the 
man  she  shot  effected  her  ruin  when  she 
was  a  child  fifteen  years  of  age,  and  pur¬ 
sued  her  with  unrelenting  feeling  for  years, 
until  she  was  driven  to  desperation  and 
shot  him.  That  is  their  case.  They  ask 
you  to  say  that  this  is  a  case  of  murder — 
they  ask  you  to  convict  this  child?  Oh! 
gentlemen,  hers  has  been  a  hard  life!  She 
came  to  this  country  a  child;  her  father 
had  preceded  her.  He  came  to  this  free 
land  to  better  his  condition,  where  it  is 
supposed  that  people  have  protection. 
Has  she  wronged  anybody?  Bear  in  mind 
the  history  of  this  child  from  the  day  that 
she  landed  upon  our  shores  until  she  fell  a 
victim  to  the  machinations  of  this  man. 
But  I  will  call  your  attention  to  her  his¬ 
tory  more  fully  hereafter. 

Now  that  is  the  prosecution  fairly  stated. 
The  District  Attorney  may  twist  it  and 
turn  it  and  pervert  it  as  much  as  he  has  a 
mind  to,  but  those  are  the  facts  proven  by 
him.  They  cannot  be  wiped  out  of  this 
case ;  they  stand  as  a  shield  to  this  pris¬ 
oner. 

What  is  our  defense?  We  say  in  general 
terms  that  Fanny  Hyde  was  an  irrespon¬ 
sible  being  at  the  time  she  shot  Watson. 
And  we  say  upon  their  own  theory  of  the 
ease,  as  my  associate  told  you  in  his  open¬ 


ing,  and  very  clearly,  that  accordii 
their  theory,  if  you  believe  the  state 
of  the  prisoner  as  to  what  took  pL 
the  moment  preceding  the  shooting, 
it  is  justifiable  homicide.  Accordii 
their  own  theory,  if  you  take  her  j 
ment,  and  I  think  you  will,  as  to 
occurred  preceding,  because  the  evi 
that  they  have  given  goes  to  corrol  a 
her  statement,  facts  that  they  thenrv 
have  call  d  out;  then  if  you  believe  u 
it  was  justifiable  homicide  accordii 
their  theory.  Well,  gentlemen,  strilo 


her  statement  as  to  what  occurred 
and  then  I  ask  you  upon  what  evi 
can  you  say  how  it  occurred?  You 
heard  the  doctor  on  the  stand  descri  i 
course  of  the  wound,  of  the  bullet. 
girl  is  a  short  girl — you  have  seen 
Mr.  Watson  a  man,  some  describing 
as  five  feet  ten  inches.  The  ball  wa*p- 


he  must  have  been  in  contact  with  h; 


could  not  have  been  any  distance, 
had  been  a  distance  away  from  hi 
ball  would  not  have  gone  up  as  the  ■ 
described  it  in  that  direction.  Till 
trict  Attorney  saw  the  force  of  the 
at  once  asked  the  doctor  1  ‘  was  ther  i 
thing  that  obstructed  the  course 
bullet?”  That  is  the  testimony  of  he 
own  physician,  of  their  own  witness  ft 
Creamer  swears  positively  and  dis 
that  there  was  nothing  there  to  ol 
the  course  of  the  bullet,  to  the  ques 
the  District  Attorney;  and  I  say,  £i 
ing  to  their  own  testimony,  these 
must  have  been  in  conflict,  and  shti 
have  been  very  near  in  order  th 
bullet  should  have  taken  that  cour. 
cause  if  he  had  been  a  distance  aij 
could  not  have  taken  that  course, 
dispute  about  that  can  there  be  up' 
evidence?  Exercise  your  own  col 
sense  and  your  own  judgment.  Ti? 
height  of  this  man,  the  height  of  tb  g* 
and  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Creamer,® 
say  that  it  corroborates  her  statM 
that  he  had  hold  of  her  at  the  til  & 
this  occurred.  He  was  right  there  t 
time,  the  very  time,  the  moment. 

There  is  other  testimonv  that  the;)] 


4 


101 


■that  goes  to  corroborate  her  in  this 
■jukr.  They  have  proven  by  her  that 
i  ed  violent  language  to  her  on  this  oc- 
fa;  that  he  used  language  indicating 

i  feeling,  or  temper,  at  least.  The  na- 
tof  his  remarks  showed  that  he  was 
j  ased  ;  she  at  that  time,  at  all  events, 
3  ot  pleasing  to  him  in  his  relations  to 
\  She,  at  all  events,  according  to  testi- 
j  called  out  by  the  prosecution,  was 
;  leasing  to  him,  and  the  language  that 
led  denoted  that  he  had  some  feeling 
>!  and  would  go  to  strengthen  the 
;(y — the  fact,  that  her  testimony  upon 

ii  point  is  true  and  correct,  taken  in 
loetion  with  the  testimony  of  Dr. 
ener. 

'  ibmit  to  you  that  they  have  corrobor- 
><  by  the  testimony  of  their  own  wit- 
553,  or  the  testimony  called  out  by  them 
css-examination,  the  statement  of  the 
s  ler'as  to  what  took  place  at  the  very 
iunt  of  the  shooting,  upon  this  occa- 
e  If  they  have,  then  I  say  that,  ac¬ 
re  lg  to  their  own  theory  and  according 
t  ir  own  testimony,  this  shooting,  un- 
r  ie  circumstances,  was  justifiable,  and 
d  the  law  to  which  I  have  called  your 
;e»ion. 

f  n  aware,  and  so  are  you,  that  there 
i  me  persons  in  the  community — there 
n  ers,  however,  are  diminishing  very 
n  y — who  imagine  that  when  a  defense 
iranity  is  interposed  in  favor  of  life, 
it  is  simply  a  resort  of  counsel  ;  that 
hi  mere  pretense;  that  in  order  that 
CEt  defense  should  prevail  the  insanity 
t.ji  party  must  be  so  transparent  and 
id  it  that  it  is  patent  to  the  world.  In 
he  words,  we  must  have  a  raving  maniac 
c<  rt  before  we  can  interpose  a  plea  of 
is  ind  properly.  And  lawyers  get  up 
d  ipend  a  great  deal  of  senseless  de- 
ion  in  regard  to  this  subject;  and  it 
cumon  in  a  single  breath  and  single 
at  ce  to  wipe  out  all  the  authors  of  the 
>t  :ty  years,  and  all  the  men  who  have 
id  this  subject  a  study  during  their 
res  Yet  if  you  wanted  to  build  a  house 
'ii  mid  first  go  to  an  architect,  and  you 
mi  have  your  plans  arranged.  You 


would  see  some  carpenters  and  mechanics 
in  whom  you  had  confidence,  and  you 
would  employ  them  to  execute  those  plans. 
If  you  want  a  portrait  painted  you  go  to 
an  artist.  If  you  want  a  wagon  built  you 
go  to  a  wheelwright;  and  so  with  every 
department  of  science  or  branch  of  indus¬ 
try;  you  go  to  the  parties  that  you  think 
have  made  these  particular  branches  a 
study,  that  they  understand  what  you 
want,  that  they  can  furnish  you  what  you 
want.  But  when  we  come  to  refer  to  au¬ 
thors  and  physicians  who  have  made  the 
mind,  the  human  intellect,  and  the  brain, 
the  seat  of  intellect,  their  special  study  for 
life,  up  jumps  the  counsel  in  Court  and  ridi¬ 
cules  the  idea.  “  Well,  is  not  the  theory 
advanced  that  some  maintain,  that  every¬ 
body  who  commits  crime  is  insane  ?  ” 
“  Oh,  no;  not  at  all.  That  is  an  evidence 
of  insanity  itself,  or  at  least  an  evidence  of 
unsoundness  of  mind  in  the  person  who 
adopts  the  theory.  No  authors  adopt  that, 
no  men  of  note.  Oh,  no;  not  at  all.” 

Well,  I  suppose  the  prosecution  will 
concede,  and  I  think  they  did  concede  in 
the  opening  that  there  might  be  such  a 
condition  of  the  mind  that  would  render 
the  person  unaccountable,  and  not  respon¬ 
sible  for  any  act  that  they  might  commit 
during  its  operation.  I  think  at  all  events 
he  went  thus  far,  that  there  might  be  a 
condition  of  the  mind,  not  in  so  many 
words,  but  I  gather  from  the  tenor  of  his 
remarks,  and  I  don’t  think  he  will  dispute 
the  proposition,  that  there  might  be  a  con¬ 
dition  of  mind  conceived  that  would  ren¬ 
der  a  person  irresponsible  for  the  commis¬ 
sion  of  any  act  during  its  continuance. 
But,  say  they,  this  condition  cannot  be 
brought  on  suddenly,  and  it  cannot  pass 
away  suddenly  ;  that  this  disease  of  the 
mind  is  of  slow  growth.  Well,  there  are 
different  affections  of  the  mind.  There 
may  be  insanity  without  the  mind’s  being 
affected,  at  least  perceptibly,  to  any  per¬ 
son,  or  perceptible  to  any  physician  or  any 
expert.  A  man’s  emotions,  his  feelings, 
his  affections  may  be  disturbed  and  de¬ 
ranged  ;  his  intellect  may  not.  That  is 
moral  insanity,  well  recognized  by  the 


102 


authorities,  well  understood.  The  intellect 
may  be  affected,  the  feelings,  the  emotions, 
the  affections  may  remain  sound.  If  you 
see  a  man  rushing  at  an  engine  coming  full 
speed,  which  to  bim  is  as  palpable  as  the  air, 
that  is  intellectual  insanity.  His  mind  is 
disordered,  his  mind  is  not  right,  his  per¬ 
ceptive  faculties.  But  it  is  not  necessary 
to  go  into  any  elaborate  discussion  upon 
the  different  kinds  of  insanity.  They  are 
various.  My  remarks  will  be  confined  to 
the  particular  case  we  have  now  under  con¬ 
sideration. 

If  an  instant  of  time,  as  is  conceded  may 
be  the  case,  may  render  a  person  account¬ 
able  for  his  acts,  if  the  devil  seizes  hold 
of  the  heart  of  a  man  and  leads  him  to  the 
perpetration  of  some  act  that  sends  him  to 
the  gallows  iu  an  instant  ?  I  ask  why,  if 
by  act  of  Providence  the  reason  is  de¬ 
throned,  the  man  is  not  unaccountable  for 
what  he  does  during  its  dethronement  ?  In 
murder,  an  intent  to  slay,  perfectly  formed 
on  the  instant,  constitutes  the  crime  under 
the  statute  of  the  State,  as  now  construed 
and  applied  by  the  Court  of  Appeals,  why 
should  not  the  analogy  hold  good  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  irresponsibility  for  crime  ?  If  a 
second  can  make  a  man  a  murderer,  why 
cannot  an  instant  of  time  create  unaccount¬ 
ability  ?  The  law  which  says,  if  a  man 
conceives  a  murderous  intent  on  the  spot, 
he  shall  go  to  the  gallows,  should  also  re¬ 
cognize  that  if  his  mind  is  wiped  out  on 
the  spot,  he,  at  that  instant  of  time,  be¬ 
comes  irresponsible. 

But,  gentlemen,  the  proposition  is  not 
in  this  case  advanced  and  has  not  been  ad¬ 
vanced,  although  it  seems  to  be  so  under¬ 
stood  by  the  prosecution,  that  a  mind  may 
be  perfectly  sound  in  all  particulars  and  in 
every  respect,  a  person  may  be  perfectly 
well  and  healthy,  the  mind  perfect  in  all 
particulars,  in  an  instant  become  deranged, 
and  in  an  instant  the  mind  and  body  be¬ 
come  healihy  again.  Nobody  that  I  am 
aware  of  would  ever  maintain  any  such 
doctrine  as  that.  It  is  not  the  doctrine  of 
the  books,  it  is  not  the  doctrine  of  any 
case  that  I  have  examined.  That  is  not 
our  proposition  in  this  case. 


What  is  our  proposition  in  this  ifl 
It  is  the  proposition  maintained  by  a  h 
medical  writers  upon  this  subject  fo| 
last  forty  or  fifty  years.  It  is  the* 
trine  maintained  to-day  by  all  the  le  J 
physicians  of  this  land  who  have  mac  I 
mind  and  diseases  of  the  brain  a  speed 
It  is  that  persons  having  the  predispi 
causes  that  have  been  indicated  ii]j 
case  may  be  deprived  on  the  instai'i 
quick  as  the  flash  of  lightning,  of  r  a 
and  accountability,  and  may,  during  hi 
temporary  suspension,  commit  some  .1 
violence,  take  life,  and  be  as  irrespo  l 
as  though  they  had  been  insane  all  d 
lives.  That  is  the  proposition.  We^ 
out  with  the  proposition  in  this  case,  d 
that  branch  of  it,  that  Fanny  Hyditf 
prisoner  at  the  bar,  had  been  seduc  I 
the  person  she  slew,  at  fifteen  years  04 
had  been  pursued  by  him  from  tha  ii 
until  this  occurrence ;  that  her  1 1 
had  become  broken  and  she  a  wreck  hi 
she  was  suffering  from  disease  at  then 
that  her  mind  was  at  the  time  afla 
under  great  strain,  the  sense  of  so  men 
wrong  pressing  upon  it,  great  grie:U 
all  these  things  existing  at  the  timeii 
to  that  this  assault  made  upon  her  btl 
man,  and,  like  the  touching  of  the  ill 
to  the  powder,  it  exploded,  and  she  b  ti 
irresponsible.  It  is  said  that  is  a  tfl 
that  cannot  be  maintained.  Is  skill 
now  ?  Is  she  insane  now  ?  No  ;  e 
not  what  you  would  call  insane.  You 
heard  her  upon  the  stand.  We  d  0 
claim  that  she  is  an  insane  being  tli 
There  she  is,  what  there  is  left  of  Ik 
wreck  ;  there  is  not  much  life  left  tal 
— it  is  small,  it  is  but  little.  But  wl  1 
tie  there  is  left  of  the  mind  is  noticJ* 
we  don’t  claim  that. 

Now,  I  shall  omit,  upon  this  bran) 
the  case,  much  that  I  had  intended  toll 
your  attention,  because  you  heard  t!k 
timony  of  the  physicians  yesterday,  id 
seems  to  me  that  it  has  been  renden  u 
necessary  ;  in  fact,  I  think  it  won 
perfectly  safe  if  I  should  leave  it  oukl 
gether  ;  but  as  I  know  that  this  will ’t 
burden  of  the  remarks  of  the  counsel 


subject,  it  is  necessary  that  I  should 
our  attention  to  some  authorities  in 
siuce  to  this  subject.  I  beg  you  to  be 
ht  with  me  ;  I  know  that  you  will, 
s  what  is  this  impulsive  insanity,  as  it 
i  ed  ?  You  may  call  it  impulsive,  or 
may  call  it  any  other  name  you  like.  I 
l  care  what  name  you  give  it — it  is  the 
dion  that  I  have  to  do  with.  Names 
i:  nothing  about,  but  it  is  the  fact  that 
(is  a  person  possessed  of  an  hereditary 
ias  one  of  the  superinducing  causes, 
ad  a  marked  change  in  her  habit  and 
pjsition,  and  other  strong  indications 
jedisposing  causes;  another  strong 
c iposing  cause — or  evidence,  more 
cy  speaking,  the  evidence  that  there  is 
singe  going  on,  that  the  mind  is  not 
illy  free  and  right.  Added  to  that  we 
vjthat  her  health  was  broken  down, 


>r  years  she  had  been  suffering  from 
ase,  which,  as  testified  to  by  a  phy- 
of  high  standing,  who  has  made  that 
i j  t  his  particular  specialty  for  years, 
•f  he  greatest  importance  ;  and  all  the 
h'ities  say  that  that  cause  itself  is 
»r h  to  produce  insanity.  If,  added  to 
t,  there  is  some  sudden  shock,  some 
answering  cause  suddenly  sprung  upon 
eian  in  that  condition,  that  that  alone 
nigh  to  cause  this  temporary  depriva- 
a  ‘  reason  that  is  called  by  the  books 
iprary  insanity,  or  mania  transitoria, 
minctive  mama  or  insanity.  It  makes 
dierence  what  you  call  it,  it  is  the  fact 
h  hich  we  have  to  deal.  Sometimes, 
■sully  on  the  application  of  a  pow- 
il  exciting  cause — mark  you,  gentle- 
n,  on  the  application  of  a  power- 
iy  sciting  cause — and  can  you  imagine 
I  ore  powerfully  exciting  cause  to 
n£>n  this  state  that  the  anthors  speak 
ju  than  the  party  being  in  the  condi- 
n  i3tified  to  ?  Can  you  imagine,  I  say, 
7  'ore  powerfully  exciting  cause  than 
en  woman,  a  young  woman,  is  in  this 


id  i 


m 

ifeij 

>rt 


on,  suffering  intensely  at  the  time 
his  cause,  and  that  a  man  should 
ly  seize  hold  of  her  and  make  such 
isition  as  was  made  to  her — I  ask 
you  can  conceive  of  any  more  pow¬ 


erfully  exciting  cause,  anything  more  cal¬ 
culated  to  stir  the  soul  and  dethrone  the 
reason  than  that  ?  If  you  can,  when  yon 
retire  to  your  jury  room  to  reflect  upon  it, 
state  what  it  is.  I  will  be  glad  to  know  it. 
But  it  seems  to  me  that  a  more  powerfully 
exciting  cause  could  not  be  conceived  than 
taking  a  women  suddenly  under  such  cir¬ 
cumstances,  while  she  was  in  that  con¬ 
dition,  and  making  such  an  infamous 
proposition  to  her  as  was  made,  and  at 
such  a  time.  Well,  now,  the  greatest 
author,  the  greatest  medical  writer,  and 
one  who  is  considered  by  courts  in  this 
country  and  in  Europe  as  one  of  the  great¬ 
est  writers  on  medical  jurisprudence,  says: 
‘  ‘  With  such  cause  it  would  break  out  sud¬ 
denly — it  would  terminate  in  a  few  hours. 
It  has  been  called  transitory  mania,  ins  an- 
taneous  mania.” 

Yet  lawyers  will  tell  you,  “Oh,  no  ;  this 
cannot  be  so.  Don’t  insanity  have  its 
period  of  incubation  ?”  What  insanity  do 
you  mean  ?  What  phase  of  it  are  you 
talking  about  ?  Don’t  insanity  have  its 
periods  of  incubation  ?  Yes  ;  it  had  it 
here.  It  had  been  going  on  incubating 
from  the  time  that  the  deceased  wrought 
the  ruin  of  this  girl.  Every  pain  that  she 
suffered  in  consequence  of  that  was  its 
period  of  incubation;  every  hour  of  grief  in 
consequence  of  her  suffering  was  its  period 
of  incubation  ;  every  tear  that  she  shed  in 
consequence  of  this  was  giving  evidence  of 
this  incubation.  Every  wild  and  frenzied 
expression  that  morning  before  this  fatal 
act  was  its  period  of  incubation.  When 
she  said  in  Washington,  in  the  agony  of 
her  soul,  when  she  was  weeping  because 
she  had  to  return  to  this  city,  “  I  feel  that 
there  is  a  curse  hanging  over  me,”  was 
evidence  of  its  incubation.  When  sitting 
by  the  stove  there  that  morning,  in  the 
agony  of  her  soul,  contemplating  the  ruin 
that  had  been  caused,  (oh,  what  a  flood 
must  have  rushed  into  her  mind  at  that 
period  !)  and  when  she  said,  I  wish  I  was 
dead,  was  its  period  of  incubation. 

Thank  God  the  day  has  gone  by  when 
irresponsible  beings  can  be  dragged  to  the 
gallows  by  the  idle  declamation  of  coun- 


104 


sel.  It  is  oar  duty  as  men,  it  is  your  duty 
as  jurors,  to  examine  this  subject  calmly 
and  diligently.  The  Court  will  do  it,  and 
the  Court  has  done  it,  and  for  the  patience 
of  the  Court  and  the  fairness  of  its  rulings 
in  behalf  of  my  unfortunate  client,  I  thank 
it.  Let  us  see  what  the  authorities  say 
upon  this  type  of  insanity: 

In  cases  like  that  of  Mercer,  where  a  man  de¬ 
stroys  the  seducer  of  his  wife,  or  sister,  or 
daughter,  we  often  see  the  influence  of  the  in¬ 
sane  temperament,  and  the  fact  assists  very 
much  in  determining  the  quality  of  the  act. 
(Ray,  p.  163.) 

We  also  know,  as  a  matter  of  no  very  unfre¬ 
quent  experience,  that  insanity  may  be  produced 
instantaneously  by  a  profound  moral  shock. 

Thati8,  it  may  instantaneously  develope 
itself — burst  forth  from  this  shock — and 
then  the  patient  is  totally  unconscious  and 
irresponsible  for  any  act  that  is  committed. 

If  a  person  may  be  deprived  of  his  senses  by 
a  piece  of  good  fortune  or  the  death  of  one  near 
and  dear  to  him,  is  it  strange  that  the  same 
Tesult  should  follow  an  event  calculated  above 
all  others  to  stir  the  soul  to  its  inmost  depths  ? 
(Ray,  p.  182.) 

“Oh,”  says  the  counsel,  “that  cannot 
be  ;  it  must  have  its  period  of  incubation.  ” 


world,  and  when  we  are  trying  a  def  *. 
less  woman  for  shooting  her  destroyer  * 
that  can  all  be  blotted  out  by  the  bres  4 
the  prosecution.  That  won’t  do,  gi|| 
men.  You  are  not  going  to  try  thii « 
upon  any  such  basis  as  that.  But  a 
the  counsel  gets  up  to  controvert  the  * 
trines  that  we  advance,  he  must  givi* 
son,  and  law,  and  facts. 

Says  the  counsel  to  one  of  the  j  a 
cians — to  Dr.  Corey — who  for  ten  or  <  a 
years  has  been  in  charge  of  an  aig 
where  these  diseases  are  treated,  wl  a 
made  it  a  specialty  for  many  yean* 
still,  when  I  asked  him  the  question,  k 
had  changed  his  mind  by  any  of  the  ti  h 
I  didn’t  put  it  in  that  form,  but  t;i 
what  I  meant — that  they  had  offered* 
the  stand  after  I  had  rested  :  “Well,* 
tor,  could  anything  that  she  could  a? 
done  subsequently  change  your  m  1! 
“  No.”  Why  ?  Because  the  eviden  n 
so  conclusive  and  overwhelming  1  hi 
mind  that  at  the  time  she  committe  lb 
act  she  was  irresponsible,  that  he  il 
not  believe  otherwise. 


One  form  of  this  affection  is  that  of  insane 
impulse,  appearing  suddenly,  without  obvious 
premonition,  and  disappearing  with  equal  rapid¬ 
ity.  It  has  been  called  impulsive  mania,  in¬ 
stinctive  mania.  (Ray,  p.  238. ) 

What  nonsense,  gentlemen,  isn’t  it,  for 
authors  to  be  writing  about  ?  And  yet, 
for  the  last  forty  or  fifty  years  the  greatest 
medical  minds  of  the  civilized  world  have 
been  advancing  this  very  doctrine,  illus¬ 
trating  it  by  hundreds  of  cases;  men  who 
have  had  charge  all  their  lives  of  the  in¬ 
sane  in  insane  institutions,  who  have  made 
this  a  specialty,  say  that  this  is  the  case. 
Isn’t  it  strange  that  all  these  great  minds, 
such  as  Bucknell,  and  Tuke,  and  Bland- 
ford,  and  Taylor,  and  Ray,  and  Pritchard, 
Costello,  Woodward,  and  many  others — 
isn’t  it  strange  that- they  should  be  for  the 
last  forty  or  fifty  years  asserting  this  doc¬ 
trine,  and  with  unanimity  maintaining  it, 
going  in  courts  and  testifying  to  it,  courts 
listening  to  it,  charging  juries  as  to  the 
fact,  and  juries  rendering  their  verdict  in 
accordance  with  it ;  isn’t  it  strange,  when 
with  one  breath,  and  in  this  age  of  the 


The  existence  of  insane  impulse  and  * 
taneous  mania  is  supported  as  well  1  A 
lessons  of  pathological  psychology  as  by  si 
lated  cases.  Amid  the  rapid  and  tumi  Ml 
succession  of  feelings  that  rush  into  the  in 
the  reflective  powers  are  paralyzed,  a:  A 
movements  are  solely  the  result  of  him  o' 
matic  impulse,  with  which  the  reason  i< 
little  to  do  as  with  the  movements  of  an  Ml 
infant  (Id. ) 

And  yet,  with  the  evidence  in  thi » 
and  with  the  authorities  and  the  fact  J9 
are  asked  to  hang  this  prisoner.  C  ir 
Not  a  day  or  a  moment  do  I  believe  ilk 
this  reaches  you,  after  the  case  is  sit 
submitted  to  you,  will  you  allow  thuin 
of  oppression  to  rest  upon  her,  bij® 
will  say  with  one  unanimous  voice,  '  .ail 
that  hand  and  let  her  go  free.” 

In  medical  science  it  is  dangerous  to  a® 
against  facts. 

If  it  is  dangerous,  isn’t  it  more  dan  im 
to  senselessly  deny  them  without  rooi 
I  wish  you  to  pay  strict  attentioito 
paragraph  that  I  am  going  to  readiw 
an  authority  : 

In  medical  science  it  is  dangerous  to 
against  facts.  Now  we  have  an  i  rumen.  n* 


105 


138  related  by  men  of  unquestionable  corn¬ 
er  and  veracity  where  people  are  irresisti- 
ipelled  to  (he  commission  of  acts  while 
,j  onscious  of  their  nature  and  consequences, 
up.  327.) 

Jinsel  seem  to  imagine  in  this  case 
i\  if  the  party  had  any  recollection 
rat  occurred,  that  that  would  show 
it  there  was  an  intent  to  kill  and  that 

i  'arty  was  sane.  You  have  heard  her 
tiony  upon  that  subject ;  view  it  either 
ytake  it  either  way.  It  makes  no  dif- 
e  ze,  no  earthly  difference .  The  author¬ 
ity  and  the  doctors  say,  “  Some  will 
:cect  and  some  will  not  recollect it 
n  proof  either  one  way  or  the  other, 
t  he  counsel  seem  to  think  it  strange 
it  the  insane  should  be  conscious  of 

ii  an  act,  and  yet  be  held  irresponsible 
"ing  an  act  that  they  were  conscious 
a  the  time.  Why,  gentlemen,  there  is 
king  more  common.  I  suppose  you 
revisited  insane  asylums,  some  of  you. 
u  lay  go  out  to  Flatbush,  where  there 
■  ime  five  or  six  hundred  of  those 
f(  Lunate  beings,  and  you  will  be  enter¬ 
al  there  by  some  of  the  insane  very 
spably.  You  go  into  the  parlor,  and 
u  vill  find  a  lady  there  who  will  sit 
w  and  discourse  most  beautiful  music 
o:the  piano.  She  will  entertain  you 
it  versation  as  rationally  as  any  person, 
i  rou  would  come  away,  if  you  were 
fc  ware  of  the  fact,  and  imagine  that 
3  is  one  of  the  matrons  or  had  charge 
t )  institution.  Go  through  the  insti¬ 
ll,  and  you  will  find  many  in  whom 
u  ill  discover  no  evidence  of  insanity 
a  ver.  But  ask  that  girl  her  history, 
I  ten  you  will  discover  the  state  of  her 
nt  You  will  discover  more;  you  will 
icier  what  it  was  that  produced  that 
-tof  the  mind,  that  ruined  intellect, 
d  aut  her  up  in  a  living  tomb — the 
erne!  the  libertine!  Oh,  I  tell  you 
3r  is  not  an  asylum  in  the  land,  if  all 
il  be  told,  that  would  not  emit  enough 
m  le  humanity  stand  aghast. 

Aj  the  force  of  these  facts,  gentlemen, 
is  be  overcame  by  something  more 
mingry  declamation  against  visionary 
ao  3s  and  ill-judged  humanity. 

8 


They  are  not  fictitious,  invented  by  medical 
men  for  the  purpose  of  puzzling  juries  or  de¬ 
feating  the  ends  of  justice,  but  plain,  unvar¬ 
nished  facts  as  they  occur  in  nature;  and  to  set 
them  aside  without  a  thorough  investigation,  as 
unworthy  of  influencing  our  decisions,  indicates 
anything  rather  than  that  spirit  of  sober  and 
indefatigable  inquiry  which  should  characterize 
the  science  of  jurisprudence.  We  need  have 
no  fear  that  the  truth  on  this  subject  will  not 
finally  prevail,  but  the  interests  of  humauity 
require  that  this  event  should  take  place 
speedily.  (Bay,  p.  327.) 

Is  not  this  author  justified  in  saying  that 
the  interests  of  humanity  require  that  this 
event  take  place  speedily,  when  we  have 
on  record  the  fact  that  men  who  have 
studied  this  subject,  who  have  studied  the 
statistics  of  trials  where  this  defense  has 
been  interposed,  state,  that  for  every  in¬ 
nocent  person  acquitted  under  this  plea, 
a  dozen, — a  score, — of  maniacs  have  been 
executed  ?  In  the  report  of  the  Massa¬ 
chusetts  Lunatic  Asylum,  the  distinguished 
physician  in  charge  says  : 

Of  all  the  cases  that  have  come  to  my  knowl¬ 
edge,  and  I  have  examined  the  subject  for 
years,  I  have  known  but  a  single  instance  in 
which  an  individual  arraigned  for  a  murder 
and  found  not  guilty  by  reason  of  insanity,  has 
not  afterwards  shown  unequivocal  symptoms  of 
insanity  in  the  jail  or  hospital  where  he  has 
been  confined,  and  I  regret  to  say  that  quite  a 
number  who  have  been  executed  have  shown  as 
clear  evidences  of  insanity  as  any  of  these. 
(Quoted  by  Ray,  p.  341. ) 

This  is  a  terrible  disease  ;  it  is  a  terrible 
affliction,  but  oh,  what  can  be  said  when*  a 
person  is  executed,  suffers  an  ignominious 
death — when  it  afterwards  turns  out  as  it 
has  in  many  of  these  cases  that  the  persons 
at  the  time  they  committed  the  acts  for 
which  they  suffered  death  were  irrespon¬ 
sible.  That  the  mind  given  them  by  the 
Deity  was  blotted  out,  not  by  any  act  of 
theirs,  but  by  influences  entirely  beyond 
their  control,  by  the  act  of  an  all- wise  and 
inscrutable  Providence,  and  that  they  were 
unconscious  of  what  they  did.  Better  that 
ninety-nine  guilty  go  free  than  that  the 
laws  of  God  and  man  should  be  thus  set 
at  defiance. 

Mania,  characterized,  as  in  these  cases,  by  a 
sudden  occurrence  of  brief  duration,  has  lately 
been  spoken  of  as  destitute  of  a  proper  founda¬ 
tion  in  fact.  (Id. ) 

Very  lately  it  has  been  so  spoken  of, 
gentlemen,  very  lately.  But — 


106 


There  is  no  substantial  reason  for  the  doubt, 
and  I  am  not  aware  of  a  single  writer  on  in¬ 
sanity,  of  any  mark,  during  the  last  forty  or  fifty 
years,  who  has  not  recognized  its  existence.  (Id.') 

Have  all  these  men  been  wrong  for  the 
last  forty  or  fifty  years,  all  these  great 
minds  and  intellects  that  have  made  this  a 
study  for  life  ?  Are  you  going  to  say  that 
they  are  all  wrong — are  you  going  to  over¬ 
ride  their  collective  judgment  and  their 
experience,  the  experience  of  their  lives  ? 
Are  you  going  to  say,  upon  the  mere  naked 
assertion  of  a  person  who  has  not  made 
this  a  specialty,  are  you  going  to  say  that 
those  were  all  wrong,  wipe  out  all  these 
authorities,  the  medical  testimony,  and 
say,  “  Well,  I  guess  she  was  not  insane  ; 
I  guess  they  were  all  wrong  ;  I  guess, 
after  all,  her  mind  was  right ;  I  guess, 
after  all,  she  was  not  laboring  under  this 
insane  impulse  ;  I  guess  she  was  all  right ; 
we  will  set  these  authorities  aside  ;  we  will 
take  the  chances  and  hang  her  ?  ”  Oh,  no  ; 
I  am  not  afraid  of  that.  Most  of  them 
have  recorded  cases  occurring  within  their 
own  observation — “most  of  these  writers 
and  these  doctors  that  have  made  this  a 
study,”  says  this  author,  “have  recorded 
cases  occurring  within  their  own  observa¬ 
tion,”  that  is,  they  have  seen  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  disease,  they  have  watched 
its  manifestations,  and  they  know  the  fact. 

Dr.  Jarvis  refers  to  some  seventy-five  or 
a  hundred  cases  of  this  disease.  I  don’t 
know  anyone  who  disputes  it — any  physi¬ 
cian.  Leave  out  the  authors.  The  authors 
are  a  unit  upon  the  subject — all  who  pre¬ 
tend  to  treat  upon  it.  I  don’t  know  a  phy¬ 
sician  that  disputes  the  doctrine.  There 
are  physicians  who  don’t  believe  that  a 
miud  can  become  diseased  all  at  once,  or  a 
party  become  insane  all  at  once  whose 
mind  was  perfectly  sound  and  whose  body 
was  perfectly  sound  before,  and  then  in  an 
instant  all  become  right  again.  Nobody 
disputes  that.  I  maintain  no  such  doc¬ 
trine  in  this  case  as  that.  The  authorities 
that  I  am  reading  here  do  not  maintain 
any  such  doctrine  as  that.  That  is  notour 
proposition  in  this  case.  Dr.  Woodward, 
to  whom  reference  has  been  made,  was 
quoted  by  my  associate  |in  his  opening  ad¬ 


dress,  and  lest  it  may  have  escapi 
tention,  I  beg  of  you  to  listen  whi 
again,  because  it  seems  to  me  tha 
volumes: 

It  may,  says  he,  in  his  report  for  1 
some  time  back,  too;  the  matter  wi 
derstood  then — It  may  be  a  consolat' 
encouragement  to  jurors  in  folio  win 
own  sincere  convictions  of  the  law 
in  such  cases,  to  know  that  in  a  pie 
inquiry  as  to  the  event  in  every  case  < 
in  New  England,  where  the  accused 
defense  of  insanity  set  up  for  him,  ai 
quitted  on  that  ground,  it  has  been 
no  instance  has  occurred  where  the 
time  has  not  abundantly  verified  the 
of  the  defense;  a  fact  which  ought 
silence  the  false  intimations  always  j 
such  cases,  that  insanity  is  set  up  as 
sort  of  a  desperate  defense. 

But  I  have  no  idea,  gentlemen 
feeling  that  has  been  manifest’ 
case,  that  it  will  silence  any  sut 
tion,  and,  therefore,  I  am  taking 
of  your  time  than  I  would  in  i 
these  authorities  upon  your  mini 

Says  Dr.  Guy: 

The  most  distinguished  author 
home  and  abroad,  have  recognized  I 
mental  unsoundness  as  existing  indr 
delusion.  The  cases  on  recoid  are  S‘ 
that  the  only  difficulty  is  that  of  sele  i 

“William  Brown,”  says  thil 
“  was  executed  in  Manchester  ii  ( 
strangling  a  child  he  had  accide  i 
one  morning  while  walking  in  th  < 
On  the  trial  he  said  he  had  neve « 
child  before,  had  no  malice  again:! 
give  no  motive  or  reason  why  he  *8 
was  tried,  convicted,  and  execute'1! 
ing  the  language  of  Lord  Brougl 
this  execution  I  add  that  it  was  t> 
nal  disgrace  of  the  court  that  ti 
But  civilization  has  wrought  a 
the  treatment  of  persons  eith 
nently  or  temporarily  deprived 

Esquirol,  one  of  the  most  distl 
authors  upon  this  branch  of  info 
ence,  while  in  charge  of  the  1 
Paris — I  think  in  1793,  if  I  mists' 
date — by  his  influence  and  by  It 
edge  of  this  disease  and  his  hum: 
succeeded  over  prejudice  and  brul 
struck  off  the  chains  from  the  sw<»< 
of  the  unfortunate  lunatics,  aijl 
them  as  human  beings.  But  at* 


107 


ow  were  they  treated?  Bound  in 
!,  put  in  straight  jackets,  punished 
physical  punishment;  all  that  has 
l  away.  This  disease  is  recognized 
lot  as  it  used  to  be.  A,  great  many 
tr  from  the  affliction;  I  think  about 
four.  I  think  that  is  about  the  sta- 


A  great  many  recover.  Science 
Ivanced  upon  this  subject,  and  it  is 
;e  in  the  day  to  go  back  to  the  time 
they  were  treated,  not  as  human  be- 
fflicted  by  God,  but  were  treated  as 
[easts.  It  is  too  late  in  the  day  to  re- 
ay  such  ideas  as  that.  We  must  look 


ji  disease  in  all  its  phases,  in  all  its 
^stations,  and  whenever  a  jury  is 
upon  to  meet  a  particular  case  they 
look  at  that  case,  that  particular  case, 
|t  all  the  manifestations  of  that  par- 
}'  case  and  the  evidence  as  bearing 
:  that,  and  leave  this  idle  talk  about 
octors,  and  this  idle  talk  about  sanc- 
\y  crime  by  letting  the  parties  go  free, 
lie  talk  about  the  protection  of  the 
unity,  and  look  at  the  case  upon  the 
I  ce  as  you  will,  as  it  is,  and  as  it  has 
1  licited  from  the  witnesses.  Only  one 
short  paragraphs  upon  this  subject 
will  leave  it,  thanking  you  for  the  at- 
ii  that  you  have  given  to  it.  I  refer 
o  an  article  written  by  Dr.  Clark, 
as  a  witness  in  the  trial  of  Pierce, 
i  eminent  physician  m  the  western 
■'  this  State.  In  an  article  afterwards 
1  bed  in  the  American  Journal  of  In¬ 
ti,  by  Dr.  Gray,  in  charge  of  the  asy- 
i  Utica,  he  said: 

c.efmed  the  state  of  mind  to  be  an  instan- 
ai  abeyance  of  reason  and  judgment, 
t(  1  of  using  the  words  impulsive  insanity, 
3:  is  it  an  instantaneous  abeyance  of  judg- 
t  during  which  period,  whether  it  be 
;e  or  shorter,  the  individual  would  be 
a  i  by  mad,  ungovernable  impulses,  that 
b|  manifestation  would  usually  be  an  act 
meditated,  motiveless,  and  entirely  out 
K>ing  with  the  previous  character  and 
:t :  thought  of  the  person.  It  would  be 
*  d  by  some  mental  strain  or  agitation — 
k  3U,  gentlemen,  it  would  be  preceded  by 
ental  strain  or  agitation — bear  in  mind 
itatal  strain  and  agitation  of  the  prisoner, 
the  morning  that  this  occurred-  cul- 
g  in  a  sudden  actual  shock.  It  would 
y  be  transient  in  proportion  as  it  was 
and  the  transition  would  most  likely 


occur  on  the  completion  of  the  act  of  violence. 
A  person  so  affected,  should  he  commit  a  hom¬ 
icide,  would  be  likely  to  justify  the  act,  or  fail 
to  remember  it,  but  would  very  rarely  attempt 
to  conceal  his  work  or  fly  from  punishment. 

Bear  that  in  mind,  gentlemen,  in  this 
case. 

In  speaking  of  Esquirol  I  made  a  mis¬ 
take  ;  I  intended  to  refer  to  Pinel ;  the 
dates  would  not  be  consistent. 

Well,  now,  I  ask  you  as  sober  men,  in¬ 
vestigating  this  evidence  and  this  case,  if 
this  is  a  new-fangled  doctrine  that  we 
have  introduced  to  you?  Is  this  some¬ 
thing  invented  by  counsel  for  the  purpose 
of  freeing  the  prisoner?  Is  there  no  foun¬ 
dation  for  it?  Is  it  all  a  fiction?  We 
bring  to  you  Doctors  Ray  and  Woodward, 
Blandford,  Jarvis,  Maudsley,  Pritchard, 
Taylor,  Guy,  Bell,  Esquirol,  Costello, 
Pinel,  and  others,  and  we  bring  living 
witnesses  on  the  stand  who  have  made  a 
specialty  of  these  diseases  corroborating 
them,  and  is  it  to  be  said  that  this  is  some 
new-fangled  doctrine,  that  this  is  some¬ 
thing  invented  as  the  last  resort  of  a  des¬ 
perate  defense,  that  there  is  no  foundation 
for  this,  that  there  is  no  ground  for  it  ? 
Are  we  to  be  told  that?  Are  you  to  be 
told  that  by  counsel,  and  appealed  to  to 
lay  aside  your  mawkish  sympathy,  as  it 
was  called  in  the  opening — lay  aside  your 
mawkish  sympathy,  protect  by  your  ver¬ 
dict  the  community — check  crime  ?  By  no 
such  idle  declamation  are  you  to  be  swerved 
from  the  strict  line  of  your  duty.  I  will 
tell  you  before  I  get  through  how  you  can 
best  protect  the  community  in  this  case. 

I  have  called  your  attention  to  the  med¬ 
ical  authorities  bearing  upon  the  question 
presented  by  the  defense  in  this  case,  to¬ 
gether  with  such  general  observations  as  I 
deemed  pertinent  to  the  case.  I  propose 
now  to  occupy  your  attention  for  a  short 
time  in  referring  to  certain  cases  that  have 
been  tried  in  our  courts — most  of  them  in 
the  courts  of  this  country.  Some  of  them 
I  presume  you  have  heard  of,  and  others  I 
presume  that  you  have  not,  unless  you 
have  given  special  attention  to  this  sub¬ 
ject.  I  call  your  attention  to  these  cases 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  you  that  this 


108 


defense  and  this  doctrine  of  insanity  has 
b  -en  consistent,  and  sanctioned  by  our 
courts ;  and  as  I  shall  show  you  before  I 
get  through,  there  is  now  in  this  country 
perfect  harmony  and  accord  between  the 
j udicial  authorities  and  the  medical  author¬ 
ities;  that  the  judges  recognize  the  defense 
that  we  have  interposed  here.  They  re¬ 
cognize  this  form  of  temporary  irresponsi¬ 
bility  in  the  fullest  extent,  as  fully  as  it 
has  been  recognized  or  maintained  by  any 
medical  authorities.  I  do  not  do  this  be¬ 
cause  I  think  it  absolutely  necessary  in 
this  case  ;  but  as  I  said  before  the  counsel 
upon  the  other  side  has  the  last  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  address  you,  and  I  know  not  pre¬ 
cisely  what  arguments  upon  this  subject 
may  be  advanced,  and  therefore  I  deem  it 
only  proper  and  my  duty  to  impress  this 
upon  your  minds  as  firmly  as  I  can — this 
our  defense,  and  the  form  of  personal  irre¬ 
sponsibility  arising  from  this  disease — and 
then  I  will  show  you,  or  try  at  least  to 
show  you,  that  the  evidence  in  this  case 
more  than  abundantly  establishes  the 
theory  that  we  have  advanced. 

The  idea  has  been  thrown  out  that  the 
person  was  not  insane,  could  not  be  insane, 
if  they  knew  or  afterwards  had  recollection 
of  what  had  transpired  or  taken  place. 
Now  it  is  a  well-established  fact  that  per¬ 
sons  undoubtedly  insane  not  only  recollect 
what  they  have  done,  acts  that  they  have 
committed,  but  it  is  equally  well  estab¬ 
lished  that  persons  insane  plan,  plot,  de¬ 
vise,  conceal,  and  yet  when  they  do  that 
there  is  no  phase  of  insanity  better  estab¬ 
lished  than  that  they  are  irresponsible 
beings.  I  presume  that  if  you  should  go 
out  to  the  asylum  of  our  own  county  to¬ 
day  you  would  find  persons  there  confined 
who  would  try  to  conceal  the  fact  that 
they  are  insane  from  you  in  conversation. 
Conscious  of  their  own  insanity  they  would 
seek  to  conceal  it  and  to  hide  it.  It  is  time 
that  this  idea  that  the  mind  must  be  totally 
blotted  out,  that  a  man  must  be  either  a 
raving  maniac  or  an  idiot,  before  his  mind 
is  in  a  condition  where  he  can  claim  irres¬ 
ponsibility  for  his  acts,  should  be  dissi¬ 
pated. 


The  first  case  to  which  I  call  yo  u 
tion  as  bearing  upon  this  point  g 
one,  occurring  in  1795.  It  is  tb  i 
Ann  Broderick,  and  there  is  an  in¬ 
history  connected  with  it.  Mr.  Ei 
the  person  who  was  shot  in  this  ( > 
formerly  been  living  with  this  pel 
he  had  left  her,  transferred  his  £  i 
to  another  person,  and  settled  ti 
what  he  deemed  to  be  a  competeii 
subsequently  was  married  to  ano  i 
son,  and  she  desired  to  see  him,  a 
him  letters  requesting  an  interne’ 


one  of  them  she  said  that  if  nothi  « 
induce  him  to  do  her  this  act  of  ou 
justice  he  must  prepare  himselix; 
fatal  alternative,  as  she  was  de  mi 


that  he  should  not  lung  survives! 
delity  ;  and  in  another  letter  she  >sa 


I  wish  it  to  come  voluntarily  from  xn 
or  else  I  will  force  it  from  you.  Belit 
that  case  I  would  seek  you  in  the  fartl . 
of  the  globe,  rush  into  your  presence, 
the  same  rapture  that  nerved  the  am 
lotte  Corday  when  she  assassinated  tb  J 
Marat  would  I  put  an  end  to  the  e> 
the  man  who  is  the  author  of  all  tl 
and  care  that  at  present  oppress  tk 
Ann  Broderick. 


One  would  imagine  that  they  oU 
some  motive  here,  some  preparatb.m 
thing  of  revenge  in  this  talk.  Som  a« 
after  that  she  goes  to  the  housa 
Erringtou  ;  he  sees  her  approac)# 
is  persuaded  to  retire  to  the  draw?»l 
and  leave  the  interview  for  his  nit 
manage.  She  enters  the  house  ad 
quires  for  him  ;  is  informed  that  ■ » 
at  home.  She  informs  the  wife  mi 
is  but  too  well  acquainted  with  e» 
of  that  house  and  she  will  exaiwl 
herself.  She  goes  into  the  drawi;-f» 
deliberately  draws  her  pistol  at  slit 
him.  Before  doing  that  she  exclus. 
am  come,  Errington,  to  perform  r 
ful  promise!”  and  instantly  prij 
trigger.  Surprised  at  his  not  f>  “8 * 
said,  “Good  God!  I  fear  I  having 
patched  you  ;  but,  come,  delivemeU 
the  hands  of  justice.” 

Well,  upon  the  statement  of  s&fcf 
as  that  you  would  naturally  sa^sba  | 
clearly  guilty  of  murder.  ButiM 


109 


:  he  had  never  shown  any  signs  of 
it  before — that  is,  that  were  observ- 
t<  the  casual  observer.  Mr.  Erring- 
eir  supposed  that  she  was  afflicted 

•  tb  disease.  She  is  tried  before  the 
.  id  the  Lord  Chief  Baron  charged 
ir  in  a  very  few  lines. 

o' the  law  certainly,”  he  says,  “required 
vill  should  accompany  the  act  to  con- 
:  elonious  murder.  The  defense  in  the 
it  se  was  that  the  prisoner  was  incapable 
tji  her  will,  guiding  it,  controlling  it, 
.gsr  will  to  the  perpetration  of  the  crime 
vbh  she  stood  charged.  On  the  whole, 
j  y  thought  the  latent  seeds  of  derange- 
a>ra  convulsive  struggle  of  six  months, 
->e  called  forth  on  this  horrible  occasion, 
toverwhelm  the  senses  of  the  unhappy 
ei  they  were  bound  in  conscience  to 
:  t  Jr.” 

isgentlemen,  is  the  talk  of  a  judge 
i£ind  in  1795,  seventy-seven  years 
his  doctrine  is  advanced  there, 
-e  ave  lived  to  see  the  day  now,  in 
ejj  of  our  Lord,  1872,  when  lawyers 
e  up  in  court  and  ridicule  the  idea 
h'e  is  any  such  condition  of  mind 
re  :ves  from  responsibility,  and  that 
1  ent  seeds  can  be  suddenly  called 
icim,  as  intimated  by  the  court  here 
is  ase.  The  case  adds,  “The  jury 
ilt  l  about  two  minutes,  and  then 
tlir  verdict,  Not  guilty.”  Subse- 
f  ents  justified  the  soundness  of 
vefict. 

e  ise  of  Amelia  Norman,  tried  in 
Yds,  was  referred  to  by  my  associate 
5  cening  of  this  case.  That  is  a  case 
e  is  plea  was  interposed,  tried  by 
it( David  Graham,  one  of  the  ablest 
rs  one  of  the  most  industrious, 
hii;  lawyers,  probably,  at  that  time 
ie  tate,  the  author  of  many  able 
s  v  on  various  subjects  of  law.  That 
ise  vas  jinterposed,  and  yet  look  at 
tel  eration  in  that  case  as  compared 
tl .  Look  at  the  evidence  in  that 
an  compare  it  with  the  evidence  in 
1  re  was  a  man  who  had  been  inti- 
vh  this  Amelia  Norman,  and  as 
-d  p  her  had  seduced  her.  He  dis- 
nu  i  his  relations  ;  not  in  that  case, 

•  1 1,  did  she  seek  to  have  the  rela- 
d  lontinued,  but  all  she  sought  was 


when  he  himself  determined  to  discontinue 
them  that  he  should  make  her  pecuniary 
reparation,  or  should  give  her  pecuniary 
means  that  would  enable  her  to  get  along 
in  the  world;  and  he  declining  to  do  that, 
she  deliberately  prepared  herself  with  a 
knife,  goes  to  his  hotel,  meets  Lim  there, 
then  appeals  t<  him  for  the  purpose  of  in¬ 
ducing  him  to  furnish  her  some  means  of 
support;  he  again  declines,  and  she  delib¬ 
erately  draws  the  weapon  with  which  she 
had  provided  herself  and  plunges  it  into 
him.  Compare  that  case  with  this.  Say 
that  there  is  insanity  in  that  case  and  re¬ 
sponsibility  in  this.  And  yet  the  jury 
without  hesitation  rendered  a  verdict  of 
acquittal,  as  my  friend  said,  that  rang 
with  applause  from  the  entire  multitude  for 
blocks  around  the  court-room,  and  was 
approved,  and  has  been  from  that  day  to 
this  by  the  ■  community.  And  the  results 
have  shown  the  justice  of  that  verdict. 

Oh!  gentlemen,  recollect  that  you  are 
in  this  case  dealing  with  a  terrible  disease. 
It  is  a  mystery,  a  mystery  probably  that 
will  never  be  fully  understood  or  solved  in 
this  world,  the  operation  of  the  mind  and 
the  intellect;  no  oue  can  define  it,  no  one 
can  tell  what  it  is.  Science  has  shown  us 
that  the  brain  is  the  seat  of  the  intellect, 
the  seat  of  the  mind.  What  is  mind  ? 
You  cannot  discover  it  by  dissecting  the 
brain.  Science  has  been  unable  yet  to 
tell — nobody  can  tell  what  the  mind  is;  it 
is  the  spirit.  Nobody  can  tell  its  opera¬ 
tions  except  as  it  develops  itself.  Ob! 
what  a  fearful  disease!  In  what  various 
ways  it  manifests  itself!  How  many  phases 
do  we  see  in  life  —  how  many  different 
manifestations!  The  intellect,  like  an  in¬ 
strument  of  a  thousand  strings,  in  order 
to  produce  perfect  harmony  all  must  be 
in  order.  If  one  is  out  of  order  when  it 
is  touched  it  interferes  with  the  harmony; 
and  yet  one  may  be  out  of  order  and  all 
the  rest  in  perfect  harmony.  So  with  the 
mind.  All  the  chords  of  the  mind  may  be 
in  perfect  order  and  sound,  except  some 
one  with  reference  to  some  particular  sub¬ 
ject  or  object  that  may  be  desired;  and 
when  that  is  touched  the  whole  frame  gives 


110 


forth  its  wail  of  woe.  How  beautifully 
was  the  dread  and  fear  of  this  disease  por¬ 
trayed  by  that  pure  spirit,  Miss  Davidson, 
who  lived  among  us  but  a  short  time,  and 
whose  intellect,  like  a  fading  star,  shone 
for  a  moment,  and  then  disappeared  in 
darkness.  She  attempted  to  describe  her 
dread  of  this  fatal  disease,  but  before  she 
had  concluded  the  paroxysm  seized  her 
intellect  and  it  was  gone.  She  said,  in  the 
few  broken  lines  that  she  had  completed: 

There  is  something  which  I  dread: 

It  is  a  dark  and  fearful  thing; 

It  steals  along  with  withering  tread, 

Or  flits  on  wild  destruction’s  wing. 

The  thought  comes  o'er  me  oft  in  hours 
Of  grief,  of  sickness,  and  of  sadness ; 

Tis  not  the  dread  of  death,  ’tis  more — 

It  is  the  dread  of  madness  ! 

And  yet,  with  all  these  various  manifes¬ 
tations  of  the  mind  that  baffle  science,  and 
thwart  the  best  efforts  to  solve  the  prob¬ 
lem,  counsel,  without  a  moment’s  exami¬ 
nation,  will  get  up  in  court,  and  proclaim 
that  all  these  doctrines  are  unsound,  and 
that,  notwithstanding  the  experience  of 
seventy-seven  years,  or  a  hundred  years, 
and  all  these  authorities,  the  verdicts  of 
juries  and  decisions  of  the  courts,  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  medical  writers  as  given  in  the 
books — they  will  say  to  you  in  this  case  it 
is  your  duty  to  take  the  life  in  violation  of 
all  law,  in  opposition  to  all  the  evidence, 
running  counter  to  all  authority,  disre¬ 
garding  all  experience,  you  are  to  be  told 
in  this  case  that  it  is  your  duty  to  drag 
what  is  left  of  the  life  of  our  unfortunate 
client  to  the  scaffold  and  there  strangle 
her  to  death. 

The  case  of  Gunn,  in  California;  he  was 
tried  for  the  shooting  of  Murphy,  who, 
as  Gunn  alleged,  had  seduced  his  sister. 
He  armed  himself  upon  learning  the  facts, 

went  out  and  deliberately  shot  Murphy _ 

armed  himself  with  a  revolver,  loaded  it, 
went  to  look  for  him,  shot  him,  killed  him. 
He  was  defended  upon  this  plea,  and  ac¬ 
quitted — justly  and  properly,  as  experience 
has  shown. 

I  refer  you  now  to  the  case  of  Mr.  Cole, 
in  reference  to  which  the  counsel  took  oc¬ 
casion,  during  the  progress  of  this  trial,  to 
say  that  in  that  case  all  law  had  been  vio¬ 


lated,  or  that  it  was  contrary  to  law  >< 
disgrace  to  the  administration  of  j ; 
that  he  should  have  been  convict r 
hung  in  order  to  have  appeased  of 
justice.  He  was  tried  in  the  city 
bany,  before  one  of  the  ablest  judges  ' 
State,  a  man  of  great  experience,  w 
long  been  upon  the  bench — Judge  t 
boom — prosecuted  by  the  ablest  cou ; 
the  State,  including  the  then  Att 
General  ;  defended  by  Mr.  Bradley,’ ' 
Mitchell,  and  by  the  late  Mr.  Bra 
had  the  pleasure  of  healing  the  a  t 
that  trial,  and  I  had  the  pleasure  oi  a 
ing  Mr.  Brady.  It  was  the  last  arg  it 
that  he  made  during  his  life.  It  was :  ol 
argument.  I  wish  I  could  prese  t! 
case  to  you  with  but  one  twentieth  tt 
the  power  and  eloquence  that  he  dinj 
there.  It  was  his  last  argument  but ;  ol 
one,  and  made  in  a  noble  cause.  I 
made  in  behalf  of  an  innocent  man,  I 
dication  of  virtue,  and  in  defense  o  a 
mon  humanity.  Who,  I  ask  you,  frc  fl 
day  to  this,  has  condemned  the  finrg 
the  jury  in  that  case  except  those 
ignorant  of  the  subject  about  wbictk 
talk.  Who,  I  ask  yon,  has  studied  t  « 
dence  in  that  case,  the  history  of  tl  « 
fortunate  man,  and  says  that  the  veicG 
that  jury  was  not  right,  just  and  pi* 
Tine,  while  the  paroxysm  was  suddt  ■ 
seized  him  upon  the  meeting  of  tli  nu 
who  had  been  the  destroyer  of  his  iH 
tic  peace — yet  there  was  some  evideel 
that  case  as  in  this,  that  he  had  s 
from  physical  ailmeut,  and  his  mil  M 
body,  his  physical  condition,  wen  me 
that  the  sudden  shock,  the  thougl  tbi 
struck  his  mind  as  a  flash  of  light  nil); 'he 
he  saw  the  destroyer  of  his  happinei  thf 
reason  deserted  him,  reason  for  tl  ox 
ment  was  dethroned,  and  frenzy,  igo* 
ernable  frenzy,  uncontrolled  by  w,  b; 
memory,  volition,  did  its  work.  ho. 
ask,  that  knows  the  facts  and  his  jo 
this  case  says  to-day,  that  the  verct « 
the  jury  was  not  right,  and  does  not:*^ 
as  a  monument  to  their  honor,  and  t!  fa 
all  time  to  come,  as  all  such  verdict*! 

I  refer  to  another  case,  because  fai 


Ill 


n  erred  to  in  certain  quarters  pend- 
ii trial,  although  differing  from  this: 
r  d  the  case  of  Mr.  Sickles.  In  that 
tire  was  no  attempt  to  introduce 
C£  testimony.  The  transaction  was 
•r  the  facts  were  proven,  and  the 
3  ii(l  to  the  jury,  you  have  a  right  to 
rn  the  evidence,  whether  this  man 
e  nnsible  at  the  time  he  committed 
or  not,  and  the  jury  said  that  he 
n  iponsible.  He  had  shot  the  seducer 
s  ife.  He  is  not  insane  to-day.  I 
)t  nderstand  nor  subscribe  to  the  doc- 
tit  once  insane  always  insane,  when 
rord  shows  us  the  proportion  of 
ho  recover  who  are  afflicted  with 
li  ‘ase  in  its  various  forms.  But  what 
>ei  the  verdict  of  the  nation  in  that 
'  Think  of  it  as  you  may,  I  ask  you, 
Is  been  the  verdict  of  the  nation  in 
e:  e  to  that  case?  Since  that  he  has 
a  ded  armies,  he  has  represented  our 
fa  at  one  of  the  important  courts  in 
■p  is  to-day  the  representative.  Why, 
v  dd  think  from  what  we  hear  now, 
t;s  whole  nation  would  rise  up  and 
k  thing  must  be  stopped.  Oh,  no! 
ny  have  had  their  differences,  may 
efferent  opinions,  different  political 
n,  and  different  biases,  but  all  can 
e  chord  in  unison  when  a  question  of 
td  comes  up — when  it  is  a  question 
b’  by  a  verdict  of  the  jury  the  liber- 
sdl  be  encouraged  in  his  work,  or 
h  •  virtue  shall  be  protected  and  de- 
3' by  the  strong  arm  of  the  law  and 
'( lict  of  a  jury,  all  differences  cease, 
d  heart  of  the  nation  beats  in  unison 
3  onest  portion  of  the  nation  in  favor 
i<  a  decision. 

e  years  ago,  a  long  time  ago — I  think 
:s  hirty-four  or  thirty-five — a  colored 
t  the  name  of  Freeman  was  sent  to 
*  rison,  charged  with  horse  stealing, 
innocent  of  the  crime,  as  subsequent 

t  showed.  When  he  came  out  he 

u 

g|t  actions  for  false  imprisonment 
i  those  who  had  made  the  false  accu- 
'tj against  him.  He  failed,  or  was 
n  d  in  his  efforts,  and  he  conceived 
i*  a  that  he  must  commence  killing, 


and  he  did  kill  four  of  Mr.  Van  Ness’  fam¬ 
ily.  It  was  a  terrible  calamity.  It  excited 
the  community,  the  whole  country  around 
about  was  aroused,  and  he  was  to  be  rushed 
to  the  gallows  without  hesitation.  A  court 
was  held,  a  jury  impanneled,  and  he  was 
defended,  and  ably  defended,  of  course,  by 
the  late  Secretary  of  State,  the  now  ven¬ 
erable  William  H.  Seward.  With  all  the 
contumely  that  was  heaped  upon  his  head 
at  that  time  because  he  would  engage  in 
the  defense  of  a  person  guilty  of  so  atro¬ 
cious  a  crime  as  this,  yet  he  believed, 
his  clear  perception  and  his  mind 
saw — as  he  supposed — did  see,  that 
this  was  an  irresponsible  being,  that 
he  had  been  afflicted  by  the  disease 
— not  of  his  own  fault,  but  by  the  act  of 
the  Deity — and  he  defended  him.  He  was 
convicted.  The  case  went  to  the  higher 
court,  and  upon  exceptions  taken  upon  the 
trial,  a  new  trial  was  granted.  Pending 
the  new  trial,  he  died  in  prison.  A  post 
mortem  was  held,  and  upon  the  examina¬ 
tion  of  his  brain  it  was  discovered  that,  be¬ 
yond  all  question,  he  was  an  irresponsible 
being,  and  was  irresponsible  at  the  time 
that  he  committed  this  act,  that  his  brain 
was  diseased  to  such  an  extent  that  there 
could  be  no  question  about  it,  and  there 
was  no  difference  of  opinion  upon  that  sub¬ 
ject  between  the  doctors.  Had  it  not  been 
for  the  efforts  of  William  H.  Seward — and 
all  honor  to  his  name — when  he  stood  up 
there  amid  denunciation  and  contumely, 
defending  the  person  that  he  believed  to  be 
innocent, — I  say  all  honor  to  his  name — 
had  it  not  been  for  his  noble  efforts,  that 
poor  unfortunate  victim  would  have  suffer¬ 
ed  an  ignominious  death  upon  the  scaffold, 
been  hung,  when  he  was  no  more  responsi¬ 
ble  for  his  acts  than  the  child  just  born. 
As  I  said,  the  day  has  gone  by  when  intel¬ 
ligent  men,  men  appreciating  the  responsi¬ 
bility  of  citizens,  will  hoot  or  scout  at  a  de¬ 
fense  of  this  kind. 

You  have  heard  the  case  of  Pierce  refer¬ 
red  to.  That  was  a  case  occurring  in  the 
western  part  of  the  State,  and  was  tried  in 
Lockport,  last  October.  The  defense  in 
that  case  was  impulsive  insanity,  the  same 


112 


as  this.  There  Mr.  Bullock  had  seduced 
the  sister  of  Mr.  Pierce.  He  tried  to  per¬ 
suade  him  to  marry  her.  He  had  provided 
himself  with  a  revolver,  and  went  to  see 
him.  He  expostulated  with  him,  and  plead 
with  him,  and  begged  of  him  to  save  his 
sister’s  honor  by  marriage.  He  refused  to 
do  it,  and  the  last  remark  that  he  made 
when  spoken  to  by  the  brother  about  the 
marriage  was,  “  I  will  see  you  in  hell  first,” 
and  upon  that  he  shot  once,  twice,  three 
times.  He  killed  him — pursued  him  and 
shot  him  down.  If  a  remark  of  that  kind, 
under  the  circumstances,  will  dethrone  rea¬ 
son,  upset  the  mind  and  destroy  all  power 
of  control,  I  ask  you,  gentlemen,  what  may 
you  expect  of  a  nervous  disposition,  a 
feeble  body,  pale  and  emaciated,  suffering 
from  the  disease  to  which  I  have  referred, 
being  attacked  in  the  manner  in  which  she 
was  on  the  morning  that  this  occurred;  I 
ask  you  what  you  will  say?  That  she  was 
sane  and  Mr.  Pierce  was  insane,  or  do  you 
disagree  with  the  verdict  of  the  jury  in  that 
case?  Who  is  it  that  questions  the  correct¬ 
ness  of  that  verdict,  what  class  of  commu¬ 
nity,  what  is  their  business,  how  do  they 
live,  how  do  they  spend  their  time,  or  who 
are  they  that  question  the  justice  of  the 
verdict  in  the  case  of  Eratus  F.  Pierce? 
Oh!  no,  gentlemen.  That  verdict  met  a 
response  in  that  community,  unanimous 
almost — excepting  always  the  class  to  which 
I  referred — a  unanimous  response,  and  so 
will  your  verdict,  when  it  is  delivered  in 
this  case,  when  it  goes  outside  of  this  court 
room  it  will  ring  through  this  community, 
and  receive  the  response  of  a  hearty  amen 
from  all  virtuous  women  and  good  men. 

You-  recollect  the  case  of  Miss  Harris,  at 
Washington,  who  shot  Mr.  Burroughs. 
She  provided  herself  with  a  pistol  in  Chi- 
cago,  came  on,  stopping  at  Baltimore,  then 
went  to  the  Treasury  Department,  and 
there,  as  I  have  stated  during  the  progress 
of  this  trial,  watched  behind  the  clock  for 
nearly  one  hour.  She  had  gone  to  the 
Treasury  Department  directly  she  arrived 
in  Washington;  she  watched  for  nearly  an 
hour,  and  shot  him.  Perhaps,  as  District 
Attorneys  have  no  feeling  and  can  relate 


the  facts  better  than  I  can— I  confess  i 
I  have  feeling— I  will  read  a  few  lii  , 
what  the  District  Attorney  said  in  tha  « 
in  opening  it  to  the  jury: 

I  think  I  am  warranted  in  saying  you  i 
tried  a  similar  case  before.  It  is  unprecet  1 
in  the  annals  of  crime.  W e  expect  to  she  h 
the  prisoner  at  the  bar  armed  herself  ^  * 
deadly  weapon  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  th  il 
came  to  Washington,  repaired  to  the  Trni 
building.  After  inquiring  of  the  doorli 
for  Mr.  Burroughs,  the  doorkeeper  tolE 
there  were  two  persons  of  that  name  ernji 
in  the  Treasury  Department.  She  loot 
the  book  where  the  names  of  the  empi 
were  recorded,  and,  turning  to  the  nai 
Adoniram  J.  Burroughs  said  he  was  thei 
tleman  whom  she  desired  to  see.  She  wi ' 
the  room,  turned  the  bolt,  when  she  sal 
object  of  her  search  standing  at  his  desk 
discharge  of  his  official  duty  :  her  envy  w  i 
cited.  Good  heavens!  what' was  there  to  I 
this  unchristian  and  pitiable  spirit!  Hovi 
she  measured  him,  she  marked  him,  she  ref : 
upon  his  death ;  she  retraced  her  steps  dov  I 
hall,  then,  turning  to  the  left  side,  she  tl 
stand  behind  a  high  clock  which  reached  o 
the  floor  almost  to  the  ceiling ;  here  slJ 
waiting  for  the  approach  of  her  unsusptl 
victim.  Great  God !  what  a  position  • 
woman.  Armed  with  a  deadly  weapon  j 
with  malice  in  her  breast,  in  a  public  buij 
in  the  metropolis  of  a  Christian  nation,  si 
a  w  oman  con  tem  pin  ting  the  crime  of  mi  < 
She  could  hear  the  ticking  of  the  clock  i 
could  observe  the  movements  of  the  hi  Is 
there  was  time  for  passion  to  subside,  for  r* 
to  resume  her  sway.  One  would  supposm 
she  would  have  seen  with  the  eyTe  of  fanu 
wife  pointing  to  her  child— alas!  alas!  he  i 
norant  of  the  tenable  fate  that  awaited  hiif 
almost  at  the  very  moment  the  instrume;  I 
death  is  pointed  at  his  back  by  the  assaiii 
hand.  He  is  walking  down  the  hall  in  m 
pany  with  a  friend,  engaged  in  conversi* 
As  he  passes  the  clock  the  prisoner  draw-jd 
pistol,  and,  without  a  word  of  winning  <m 
tice,  aims  and  fires,  inflicting  a  mortal  woi 

Was  not  that  enough  to  satisfy  the  assa.nl 
revenge  ?  No,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  she  m 
into  the  centre  of  the  hall,  deliberately  i 
her  pistol  and  aims  directly  at  his  head,  <  ami 
appear  from  the  impression  made  uporil 
wall,  which  will  remain  a  lasting  memori  d 
this  cruel  and  bloody  tragedy.  But  this  u  I 
useless  expenditure  of  ammunition  ;  her  cad 
was  accomplished,  her  revenge  was  satisd; 
the  body  of  her  victim  lies  bleeding  at  herd 

You  would  suppose  from  that  retel 
that  that  was  a  case  of  murder,  wou’i'l 
you?  That  is  the  story  told  by  the  P>*> 
curing  Attorney,  who  never  have  any  at 
ing  in  these  cases.  That  is  the  story  ahe 
relates  it.  She  was  acquitted  by  the  rj 
after  a  very  short  absence,  on  the  grod 


113 


,nity,  and  to-day  she  is  a  confirmed 
in  the  asylum  at  Washington  ;  has 
;en  there  by  Dr.  Correy,  recently. 

,  it  is  possible  to  hang  a  person  who 
ponsible  for  his  acts,  and  the  case 
aently  be  not  very  well  understood. 
:rse,  when  a  person  is  hung  the  evi- 
:  tops  there;  there  is  no  further  de- 
ent,  as  a  general  thing.  But  in  the 
■  Mary  Harris,  the  jury  did  their 
y  this  unfortunate  being,  and  she 
;is  hopelessly  insane,  and  has  been 
e  day  of  that  occurrence, 
sence,  who  attempted  the  life  of 
(nt  Jackson,  provided  himself  with 
>i  loaded  it,  went  deliberately  to  the 
k  where  the  President  was  attending 
aeral  of  a  member  of  Congress,  and 
e.tely  aimed  it  and  snapped  it  at  the 
i  ilagistrate.  He  was  defended  on 
pund  of  insanity,  although  he  had 
e  tely  prepared  the  weapon,  and  he 
u  uitted  on  that  ground.  Nobody, 
tit  day  to  this,  has  questioned  the 
li  ss  of  that  verdict.  If  it  had  been 
h’e,  the  result  might  have  been  dif- 
t.  We  have  seen,  lately,  a  farce  en- 
i  England  that  must  be  looked  upon 
ri  be  looked  upon  always  by  all  na- 
a  1  all  men  of  intelligence  as  a  farce. 
7  convicted,  for  attempting  to  force 
>uen  to  sign  a  petition,  of  an  assault, 
is  ictually  sent  to  prison  for  a  year, 
adf  sending  him  to  an  asylum,  where 
tg ;  to  have  been  sent.  I  will  venture 
7  at  there  is  not  one  man  in  a  mil- 
D'  one  physician  in  ten  thousand, 
wild  hesitate  for  an  instant  to  say 
tit  was  the  act  of  an  insane  person 
9 1  le  that  it  was  committed. 
w,;entlemen,  having  called  your  at- 
'n  o  a  few  of  these  cases — many  I 
or  tted  because  time  is  progressing, 
I  )n’t  want  to  weary  you— I  have 
ca  d  your  attention  to  a  few  of  the 
ag  >nes;  let  us  see,  and  I  desire  to 
ier  e  them  right  here,  whether  or 
wp  the  predisposing  causes  in  this 
at  I  desire  you  to  carry  them  in 
m  ds  as  I  state  them.  I  shall  not 
ss  em  at  this  point. 


First.  We  say  we  have  shown  by  evi¬ 
dence  here  uncontradicted  and  beyond 
question,  that  there  was  hereditary  predis¬ 
position  in  the  family.  We  say  that  this 
is  established  by  the  evidence  in  this  case 
without  any  dispute. 

Second.  We  say  that  wre  have  shown  a 
change  of  temperament,  the  accused  be¬ 
coming  irritable,  less  attentive  to. her  ap¬ 
pearance,  and  that  these  are  regarded  as 
strong  indications  of  some  change  going 
on  in  the  mind,  and,  the  mind  of  the  per¬ 
son  thus  changed,  that  predisposes  it  to 
any  sudden  convulsion  from  any  sudden 
shock,  from  any  sudden  cause.  I  won’t 
stop  to  call  your  attention  to  the  authori¬ 
ties  on  the  subject;  I  have  them  noted 
here  upon  my  points.  I  will  not  weary 
you  by  calling  your  attention  to  the 
authorities;  I  say  the  authorities  place 
great  stress  upon  that  as  one  of  the  indi¬ 
cations. 

Third.  Then  we  say  we  have  shown  in 
this  case  great  misfortune  and  grief. 

Fourth.  We  say  that  on  the  day  that 
this  occurred,  the  evidence  shows  beyond 
any  peradventure  that  some  overpowering 
subject  was  oppressing  the  mind  of  the 
accused;  that  there  was  some  trouble 
weighing  her  down;  that  there  was  some¬ 
thing  preying  upon  her  mind,  unnerving 
her;  that  she  didn’t  act  naturally,  didn’t 
look  naturally;  that  there  was  evidence  of 
something  oppressing  her  mind,  some 
great  weight  and  overwhelming  grief. 

Fifth.  We  say  that  we  have  shown  in 
this  case  that  she  was  suffering  from  one 
of  the  most  fruitful  causes  calculated  to 
fit  a  subject  for  the  reception  of  just  such 
a  manifestation  of  insanity  as  was  brought 
out  by  this  sudden  shock,  this  sudden  as¬ 
sault  that  was  made  upon  her. 

And  we  say  further,  gentlemen,  that  all 
these  causes  combined  in  this  one  case, 
when  the  medical  testimony  is  and  the 
medical  authorities  say  that  if  a  subject 
possessed  either  one  of  them,  it  would  not 
be  strange  to  find  such  manifestations  of 
insanity.  And  yet  we  have  them  all  com¬ 
bined  here,  all  in  the  one  person,  and  you 
are  asked  to  set  all  this  aside,  and  to  say 


114 


that  in  this  case  this  prisoner  at  the 
time  she  committed  this  act  did  it  delib¬ 
erately  and  intentionally,  and  that  it  was 
prearranged  in  her  mind,  thought  over, 
conceived,  reflected  upon. 

I  shall  call  your  attention  for  a  few  mo¬ 
ments,  and  I  will  be  very  brief,  to  the  legal 
standard  of  accountability.  My  purpose 
is  to  show  that  there  is  perfect  hannony 
between  the  legal  and  judicial  standard  of 
accountability  with  reference  to  these  cases 
and  to  this  subject.  A  knowledge  of  right 
and  wrong,  of  good  and  evil,  were  former¬ 
ly  held  in  England  to  be  the  tme  criterion 
of  accountability.  Of  course  there  is  no 
such  criterion  now  suggested  in  England 
or  in  this  country.  It  is  not  the  test  at  all. 
Lord  Chief  Justice  Mansfield  once  held 
this  doctrine,  and  promulgated  it  in  the 
case  of  the  unfortunate  Bellingham,  tried 
for  the  murder  of  Perceval.  Lord  Lynd- 
hurst  modified  the  doctrine  a  little  in  the 
case  of  Oxford,  by  saying  that  “  if  he 
didn’t  know  when  he  committed  the  act, 
what  the  effect  of  it  if  fatal  would  be,  with 
reference  to  the  crime  of  murder,”  he  was 
not  guilty.  Even  this  modification  would 
have  saved  the  unfortunate  Bellingham, 
yet  there  is  not  a  judge  in  England  or  this 
country,  who  would  assert  this  to  be  the 
law  now  with  reference  to  the  accounta¬ 
bility  of  the  insane.  The  medical  juris¬ 
prudence  of  insanity  up  to  a  very  late 
period  has  been  vague,  contradicting, 
conflicting,  and  uncertain.  You  will  allow' 
me  to  read  a  paragraph  here  to  show'  how- 
uncertain  and  unsettled  a  few  years  ago  the 
law  was  in  England  upon  this  subject. 
Butwe  are  advancing,  science  is  advancing, 
knowledge  is  advancing,  with  reference  to 
this  subject  as  with  reference  to  all  other 
subjects. 

One  principle  after  another,  says  this  great 
author,  has  been  successively  abandoned  and 
resumed,  either  with  the  sternest  disregard  of  con¬ 
sistency  or  the  most  extraordinary  ignorance  of 
previous  decisions.  Thus,  the  old  maxim  that 
insanity  does  not  annul  criminal  responsibility 
in  one  who  retains  the  power  of  distinguishing 
right  from  wrong,  was  abandoned  in  the  case 
of  Hadfield,  re-affirmed  in  that  of  Bellingham, 
again  abandoned  in  that  of  Martin,  modified 
though  approved  in  the  same  year  by  Lord 
Lyndhurst,  and  again,  in  the  year  1837,  a  jury 


holding'in  their  hands  the  life  of  a  fellow  mi 
are  told  by  Mr.  Justice  Park,  that,  as  rega 
the  effect  of  insanity  on  responsibility  for  crii 
“it  is  merely  necessary  that  the  party  sho 
have  sufficient  knowledge  to  discriminate 
tween  right  and  wrong.”  In  the  trial  of  Oxf 
three  years  later,  this  doctrine  w’as  repudia 
by  Lord  Denham  ;  and  three  years  later,  in 
trial  of  Higginson,  it  was  re-affirmed  by  Mr.  1 
tice  Maule.  The  test  was  again  held  up,  in 
original  nakedness,  in  the  case  of  Stokes,  (18- 1 
when  the  Court,  Baron  Rolie,  said  that  “  ei  ■ 
man  is  held  responsible  for  his  acts  to  the  ■ 
of  his  country,  if  he  can  discern  right  fi  i 
wrong.” 

Well,  gentlemen,  if  at  so  short  a  perl 
back,  thirty  or  forty  years  ago,  the  jud  i 
in  England,  the  great  minds  there,  3 
great  judges,  were  so  uncertain  in  reg  1 
to  this  question  of  account  ability,  i 
question  of  responsibility,  so  ignorf 
upon  this  subject,  I  ask,  will  you  sit  h  s 
having  the  life  of  this  prisoner  in  j  i 
hands,  in  view  now  of  the  advanced 
science  upon  this  subject,  and  incretd 
investigations,  in  view  of  all  the  disco  r- 
ies  that  have  been  made,  in  view  novi 
the  decisions  of  the  courts  aud  of  t.  << 
great  authors,  that  are  uniform,  will  >n 
say  that,  notwithstanding  we  have  advai  d 
in  science,  notwithstanding  our  know!  ? 
has  progressed  with  reference  to  these  b- 
jects,  notwithstanding  all  these  aut  r* 
say  that  now  there  is  no  test,  that  we  n- 
derstand  more  of  this  disease  than  weid 
before,  notwithstanding  judges  procla  ii 
from  the  bench  in  this  country,  from  li- 
fornia  to  New  York,  and  throughout  be 
whole  land,  are  you  to  say,  well,  we  ill 
go  back,  we  will  go  back  to  the  uncer  n- 
ty  that  existed  in  England  forty  years?*, 
and  we  will  hang  this  woman  by  that  le- 
and  we  will  acquit  that  man  by  an  aw 
rule,  which,  if  it  had  been  applied  hdw 
one  hung  before,  would  have  acqu^d 
that  one  ?  Will  you  go  back  to  the  rion 
of  uncertainty,  and  pass  upon  the  I*.® 
a  prisoner,  or  will  you  take  now  tl 
knowledged  authorities  upon  this  ]iit 
medical  and  judicial,  and  say,  upon 
we  stand,  upon  them  we  plant  oursrw. 
to  them  we  pledge  our  consciences  M 
right  or  wTong,  we  are  free  ;  we  have  out 
according  to  law,  according  to  the  atH#1, 
ities,  and  according  to  evidence,  al  ^ 


115 


canee,  a  person  has  been  set  free  who 
; .  not  to  have  been,  you  will  have  the 
.station  of  knowing  that  you  discharged 
ifluty  conscientiously, 
j'd  Hale  repudiated  partial  insanity 
i  efense,  and  held  that  there  must  be 
cil  obliteration  of  the  mind.  This 
rv  doctrine  was  first  subverted  in 
lid’s  case,  where  the  great  Erskine 
rht  his  giant  intellect  to  bear,  al¬ 
ii  h  I  will  show  you  in  a  moment,  with 
nice  to  a  case  to  which  I  have  ad- 
t(  he  changed  his  opinions  with  ref- 
i'  to  this  question  of  insanity.  With 
giat  intellect,  his  great  learning  and 
g;at  research,  he  admits  as  much  as 
a|i  if  he  had  been  on  the  jury  in  a 
;ai  case  he  would  have  convicted  the 
tjand  yet  he  says  that  he  was  mis- 
iiin  his  view  in  regard  to  this  question 
tc  iunt  ability. 

hren’t  come  yet  to  the  question  of 
b  There  is  nothing  but  doubt  in  this 
i,  oubt  upon  every  point — it  was  hard- 
o  le  dignity  of  that,  even, 
fir  these  various  conflicting  authori- 
id  decisions,  and  this  vacillating 
rs  of  the  courts  in  England  that  I 
e  tiled  your  attention  to,  in  1840,  the 
tr  e  began  to  dawn  upon  the  courts  a 
e  ore  clearly,  and  then  insanity  was 
dji,  first  into  a  total  intellectual  insan- 
P'tial  intellectual  insanity,  total  moral 
-fif,  partial  moral  insanity. 

el  ion,  said  Lord  Erskine,  when  there  is 
re  y  or  raving  madness  is  the  true  charac- 
>f  sanity,  and  when  it  cannot  be  predicated 
n  a  for  life  or  death  for  a  crime,  he  ought 
h  ny  opinion,  to  he  acquitted. 

o'  I  read  you  a  sentence  or  two  from 
r  larks  of  Lord  Erskine  in  reference 
hi  irst  case  to  which  I  called  your  at- 
dc ,  reported  in  a  volume  I  have  here 
■el  irated  trials  tried  in  1795,  the  case 
dr  Broderick  : 

nit  be  a  consolation,  he  says,  to  those 
~  iecuted  her,  this  is  Lord  Erskine,  that 
acquitted,  as  she  is  at  this  time  in  a  most 
id  and  deplorable  state  of  insanity. 

L  nfess,  if  I  had  been  upon  the  jury  who 
,i|:  I  should  have  entertained  great  doubts 
o  iculties;  for  although  this  unhappy 
iaipad  before  exhibited  strong  marks  of 
ail  arising  from  grief  and  disappoint¬ 


ment,  yet  she  acted  upon  facts  and  circum¬ 
stances  which  had  an  existence,  and  which  were 
calculated  upon  the  ordinary  principles  of  hu¬ 
man  action,  to  produce  the  most  violent  resent¬ 
ment.  Mr.  Errington  had  just  cast  her  off  and 
married  another  woman,  or  taken  her  under 
his  protection.  Her  jealousy  was  excited  to 
such  a  pitch  as  occasionally  to  overpower  her 
understanding.  But  when  she  went  to  Erring- 
ton’s  house,  where  she  shot  him,  she  went  for 
the  express  and  deliberate  purpose  of  shooting 
him.  She  didn’t  act  under  a  delusion  that 
he  had  deserted  her  when  he  had  not,  but  took 
revenge  upon  him  for  an  actual  desertion.” 

If  such  great  minds  as  these  will  differ 
in  regard  to  this  question,  are  we  to  send 
an  unfortunate  creature  to  the  gallows, 
saying  that,  to  our  minds,  the  case  is  so 
clear  that  there  is  no  reasonable  doubt 
upon  the  question  of  the  responsibility  of 
the  party  at  the  time  of  the  commission  of 
the  act  ? 

Liberty  of  will  and  of  action  is  absolutely 
essential  to  criminal  responsibility.  Insanity, 
says  the  same  great  author,  is  a  disease 
before  the  prospect  of  which  the  stoutest 
heart  may  quail,  but  how  much  more  ap¬ 
palling  is  it  made  by  the  reflection  that  in 
some  slight  paroxysm  it  may  be  followed  by 
legal  consequences  that  will  consign  its  unhappy 
subject  to  an  ignominious  death.  Shocking  as 
it  is  for  one  bearing  the  image  of  his  Maker  to 
take  the  life  of  a  fellow-being  with  brutal 
ferocity,  how  shall  we  characterize  the  deliber¬ 
ate  perpetration  of  the  same  deed  under  the 
sanction  of  the  law. 

Upon  this  subject  I  read  a  brief  extract 
from  Dean’s  Medical  Jurisprudence,  as 
reported  in  this  case.  (Fair  trial.) 

Irresponsibility,  where  it  arises  from  deranged 
or  perverted  action,  should  absolve  from  all  ac¬ 
countability  ;  because,  first,  the  act  is  unavoid¬ 
able,  and  the  actor,  therefore,  no  more  a  subject 
of  punishment  than  a  machine  for  going  wrong 
when  some  part  of  the  machinery  is  out  of 
order.  To  administer  punishment  under  such 
circumstances  would  shock  all  the  moral  sym¬ 
pathies  of  man. 

And  as  referred  to  by  my  learned  asso¬ 
ciate  in  his  opening,  says  Dr.  Bell,  that 
“  for  every  real  criminal  acquitted  on  the 
score  of  insanity,  there  have  been  a  dozen 
maniacs  executed.”  You  all  recollect  the 
grand  doctrine,  the  merciful  doctrine,  and 
where  and  by  whom  it  was  enunciated: 
“It  is  better  that  ninety-nine  guilty  go 
free  than  that  one  innocent  should  be  pun¬ 
ished.” 

Now  a  word  or  two  with  regard  to  the 
judicial  view  of  this  subject.  Says  Chiei 


116 


Justice  Shaw,  one  of  the  ablest  judges 
Massachusetts  ever  had  : 

In  order  to  constitute  a  crime,  a  person  must 
have  intelligence  and  capacity  enough  to  have 
a  criminal  intent  and  purpose  ;  and  if  his  reason 
and  mental  powers  are  either  so  far  deficient 
that  he  has  no  will,  no  conscience  or  controlling 
mental  power,  or  if  through  the  overwhelming 
violence  of  mental  disease  his  intellectual 
power  is  so  far.  for  the  time,  obliterated  ;  he  is 
not  a  responsible  moral  agent  and  is  not  punish¬ 
able  for  criminal  acts. 

Upon  this  point  I  desire  to  call  your  at¬ 
tention  to  a  case  that  has  occurred  in  our 
own  State,  decided  by  the  Court  of  Appeals, 
where  they  refer  to  this  doctrine.  Judge 
Brown  says  :  I  read  from  the  case  of  The 
People  against  McCann,  reported  in  16th 
New  York — that  decision  is  in  no  wise 
modified  or  changed  by  the  decision  in 
the  cases  of  The  People  against  Ferris— 
(35  N.  Y.,  and  Walter  32  N.  Y.) — these  de¬ 
cisions  don’t  change  at  all  the  doctrine 
laid  down  in  this  case.  It  consequently  is, 
says  the  Judge,  true  that 

Sanity  is  the  normal  condition  of  the  human 
mind,  and  in  dealing  with  acts,  criminal  or 
otherwise,  there  can  be  no  presumption  of  in¬ 
sanity.  But  it  is,  not  true,  I  think,  upon  the 
traversing  of  an  indictment  for  murder  when  a 
defense  of  insanity  is  interposed  and  the  homi¬ 
cide  admitted  or  not  disputed,  that  the  issue  is 
reversed  and  the  burden  shifted.  The  burden 
is  still  the  same  aud  it  still  remains  with  the 
prosecution  to  show  the  existence  of  those 
requisites  or  elements  which  constitute  the 
crime,  and  of  this  the  intention  or  malice-ani¬ 
mus  of  the  prisoner  is  the  principal. 

In  referring  to  the  charge  of  the  Judge, 
which  is  overruled  by  the  Court  of  Ap¬ 
peals,  he  says  : 

The  doctrine  of  the  charge  proceeds  upon  the 
idea  that  the  homicide  is  per  se  crime,  that  the 
mere  destruction  of  human  life  by  the  act  of 
another  is,  without  any  other  circumstances, 
murder,  or  some  of  the  degrees  of  manslaughter. 

That  is  the  doctrine  here  in  this  case  ; 
there  is  the  killing  and  that  is  all  there  is 
in  the  case  : 

The  killing  of  a  human  being  by  another  is 
not  necessarily  murder  or  manslaughter,  it  may 
be  either  excusable  or  justifiable  homicide  ;  it 
may  have  been  effected  under  either  of  those 
conditions  referred  to  by  the  elementary  writers, 
in  which  the  will  does  not  join  with  the  act, 
and  then  it  is  not  criminal.  Sound  memory 
and  discretion  at  the  time  of  the  killing  is  often¬ 
times  the  only  material  question  in  the  trial  oi 
an  indictment  for  murder.  They  are  essential 
elements  of  the  crime,  to  be  established  upon 
the  trial  as  a  point  of  the  case  of  the  prosecu¬ 


tion.  “A  vicious  will,  without  a  vicious  w 
says  Blackstone,  “is  no  crime.”  So,  on 
other  side,  an  unwarrantable  act,  withoni 
vicious  will,  is  no  crime  at  all.  So  that  to  c 
stitute  a  crime  against  human  laws,  there  m 
be  first  a  vicious  will  and  secondly  an  unlaw 
act  consequent  upon  such  vicious  will  If  th 
be  a  doubt  about  the  act  of  killing,  all  will  c 
elude  that  the  prisoner  is  entitled  to  the  ben 
of  it  ;  and  if  there  be  any  doubt  of  the  fact 
of  the  prisoner  to  discriminate  between  ri, 
and  wrong,  why  should  he  be  deprived  of 
benefit  of  it  when  both  the  act  and  the  will 
necessary  to  make  it  a  crime. 

But  if  the  proof  leaves  it  in  doubt  whet 
the  act  was  intentional  or  accidental,  if 
scales  are  so  equally  balanced  that  the  jury  c 
not  safely  determine  the  question,  shall  not 
prisoner  have  the  benefit  of  the  doubt,  ant 
he  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  in 
gard  to  the  malicious  intent,  shall  he  not  be 
titled  to  the  same  benefit  upon  the  questioi" 
his  sanity  and  his  understanding  ? 

Recorder  Hoffman  said,  in  the  case’ 
Wagner : 

I  have  been  requested  to  charge  you,  thi  t 
the  prisoner  committed  the  act  in  a  momen  ( 
frenzy,  he  cannot  be  convicted  of  murder  in  ) 
first  degree.  I  not  only  charge  that  prop- 
tion,  but  if  his  mind  was  in  that  condition. ; 
cannot  be  convicted  of  any  offense. 

Judge  Crawford,  in  the  case  of  Sick , 

said  : 

The  law  does  not  require  that  the  insa:r 
which  absolves  from  crime  should  exist  for  f 
definite  period,  but  only  that  it  exists  at  e 
moment  when  the  act  occurred  with  which  e 
accused  stands  charged. 

I  will  read  once  more  upon  this  bran 
of  the  subject  and  then  pass  on  : 

A  prisoner  must  have  sufficient  memory,  i- 
telligence,  reason  and  will  to  enable  him  to  t- 
tinguish  between  right  and  wrong  in  regar  o 
the  particular  act  about  to  be  done,  to  k  » 
and  understand  that  it  will  be  wroug,  and  it 
he  will  deserve  punishment  by  commit tinft. 
He  must  have  intelligence  and  capacity  enob 
to  have  a  criminal  intent  and  purpose,  an  if 
his  reason  and  mental  powers  are  either  sc> 
ficient  that  he  have  no  will,  no  controlling  r)- 
tal  power,  or  if,  through  the  overwhelrig 
voice  of  mental  disease,  his  intellectual  pot 
is  for  the  time  obliterated,  he  is  not  a  resp- 
sible  moral  agent,  and  is  not  punishable  ft 
criminal  acts. 

But  the  counsel  will  say,  she  provid 
herself  with  a  pistol,  and  he  will  ring  to 
changes  on  that  all  through.  She  wen# 
this  store  with  her  brother  ;  she  conti- 
plated  this  murder  ;  she  bought  this  pisl ; 
it  was  loaded  ;  and  you  will  hear 
ringing  all  through  this  case,  from  be  li¬ 
ning  to  end.  She  bought  the  pistol ;  i® 


ctemplated  this  at  this  time;  this  was 
i  arranged  ;  this  was  preconcerted  ;  this 
r  understood  in  advance ;  as  I  have 
aed  your  attention  to  many  cases  where 
sties  have  purchased  or  provided  them. 
»  es  with  weapons,  and  that  that  is  not 
trange  freak  of  the  insane,  I  hardly 
Ink  that  I  need  say  much  more  upon  the 
uject.  But  I  know  how  it  will  be  urged, 
fc  ill  be  said  that  sane  people  contemplate 
ne,  go  and  purchase  revolvers,  or  pre- 
a;  themselves  with  the  weapons  with 
rh h  to  commit  crime,  and  that  Fanny 
l  ie  went  and  purchased  a  revolver,  and 
rt,  Fanny  Hyde  is  a  sane  being  and  was 
m  at  the  time  this  shooting  took  place, 
ltough  this  revolver  was  purchased 
:as  before  and  laid  away  in  the  bureau 
lire r ;  given  as  a  present  to  her  husband; 
uladed  as  a  present  to  her  husband  ;  in- 
n.ed  as  a  New  Year’s  present,  but  be- 
aie  she  hadn’t  the  means,  having  to  pay 
ei,  it  was  postponed  for  a  few  days.  You 
dhear  the  changes  ring  upon  the  revol- 
■ei  She  bought  the  revolver,  she  went 
’.i  the  brother  and  bought  the  revolver. 
rV>,  gentlemen,  if  the  insane  never  pro- 
icd  themselves  with  the  weapons  with 
-hh  they  commit  the  homicide,  there 
ievr  would  be  any  one  placed  upon  trial 
oriuch  an  offense  and  we  would  know 
loling  about  these  cases.  But  the  fact  is 
he  do  provide  themselves  with  these 
nsuments.  Amelia  Norman  provided 
leiilf  with  the  weapon  of  death  ;  Gunn, 
;rii  in  California,  did  ;  Sickles  did  ; 
-le  ge  W.  Cole  did  ;  Daniel  MacFarland 
-iid  the  poor  unfortunate  negro  that  I 
iai  alluded  to,  (defended  by  Seward.) 
iid  Eratus  F.  Pierce  did ;  Mercer  did  ; 
ha  'ence  did  ;  Griffin  did  ;  Mary  Harris, 
Qoi  hopelessly  insane  in  the  asylum  at 
Wa,  lington,  did  ;  all  these  provided  them- 
seh|s  with  the  weapons  of  death  in  ad- 
va®,  and  yet  we  are  to  be  told,  in  this 
'•as  that  this  person  is  sane,  because  she, 


we< 
°f 
it  t: 
tioi 
son. 


s  before,  made  her  husband  a  present 
pistol,  and  was  w’th  her  brother  when 
3  purchased.  Let  me  call  your  atten- 
to  this  subject,  it  may  be  new  to 


The  insane,  says  Esquirol,  group  and  ar¬ 
range  their  ideas,  carry  on  a  reasonable  conver¬ 
sation,  define  their  opinions  with  subtlety  and 
even  -with  rigid  severity  of  logic,  give  rational 
explanations,  and  justify  their  acts  by  highly 
plausible  motives.” 

"Winslow  also  says  when  speaking  upon 
this  subject : 

I  refer  to  the  subtle  quickness  of  apprehen¬ 
sion,  ready  wit,  biting  sarcasm,  great  power  of 
self  control,  extreme  cunning  and  extraordinary 
shrewdness  of  the  insane,  as  well  as  the  wonder¬ 
ful  mastery  they  have  occasionally  been  seen  to 
exercise  over  their  acknowledged  delusions  while 
under  the  scorching  an ;  lysis  of  the  ablest  and 
most  accomplished  advocates  of  the  day. 

You  have  all  read  enough  of  history  to 
remember  the  case  in  which  an  insane  per¬ 
son  baffled  the  great  Lord  Erskine.  A 
man,  insane,  by  the  name  of  Wood,  had 
procured  the  indictment  of  Conrow,  in 
London,  for  false  imprisonment.  The  case 
came  on  and  was  tried,  and  upon  the  trial, 
he  being  the  principal  witness,  it  was  dis¬ 
covered  he  was  insane  upon  a  particular 
subject,  and  he  was  defeated  in  the  trial. 
He  procured  a  second  indictment  and  the 
case  was  tried,  and  for  one  whole  day  he 
baffled  court  and  Lord  Erskine  to  discover 
the  slightest  evidence  of  his  insanity.  He 
knew  what  they  wanted  and  what  they 
were  trying  to  do,  and  he  had  will  enough 
to  baffle  them  ;  and  yet  there  was  no  doubt 
about  his  insanity.  And  yet  we  hear  peo¬ 
ple  talking  about  this  subject  as  flippantly 
as  though  they  had  made  it  the  study  of 
their  lives.  They  think  there  can  be  no 
such  thing  as  insanity  unless  they  see  a 
person  rushing  along  the  street  like  a  rav¬ 
ing  maniac.  That  is  the  evidence  to  them 
of  insanity.  They  forget  the  structure  of 
the  human  mind,  that  nobody  yet  has  been 
able  to  discover,  but  only  that  it  is  made 
up  of  many  chords.  One  may  be  out  of 
order  and  the  others  not.  Balfour  Brown, 
an  eminent  authority,  and  a  recent  author 
upon  this  subject,  says  : 

Nothing  is  more  common  than  to  find  per¬ 
sons  who  are  undoubtedly  insane  managing 
their  own  affairs  with  much  practical  ability. 

And  yet  this  idea  would  be  scouted  or 
hooted  by  some. 

“  Oh,  ”  says  the  counsel,  “  is  not  the  idea  ad¬ 
vanced  that  the  majority  of  people  are  insane  ?  ” 

No,  there  is  no  such  doctrine  advanced 


118 


by  any  person  of  sense.  No  person  of 
sense  or  intelligence  advances  the  idea  that 
the  majority  of  people  are  insane.  But  we 
do  maintain  the  doctrine  that  it  is  not  nec¬ 
essary  for  a  man  to  be  a  raving  maniac  in 
order  to  bring  him  within  the  pale  of  legal 
irresponsibility.  Lord  Eldon  relates  a  case 
where  he  had  repeated  conversations  with 
a  person  who  was  his  own  client.  A  com¬ 
mission  of  lunacy  had  been  applied  for  and 
he  was  employed  in  the  case,  and  so  con¬ 
vinced  was  he  of  the  sanity  of  this  man 
that  he  went  to  Lord  Thurlow  and  induced 
him  to  supersede  the  commission,  and  this 
insane  person,  calling  upon  him  imme¬ 
diately  afterwards  to  thank  him  for  his  ef¬ 
forts  in  his  behalf,  convinced  Lord  Eldon 
that  the  worst  thing  he  could  have  done 
was  to  have  had  the  commission  supersed¬ 
ed,  because  he  was  convinced  of  the  insan¬ 
ity  of  the  man.  It  is  a  matter  of  history 
that  Tasso  wrote  some  of  his  most  impas¬ 
sioned  and  elegant  verses  during  par¬ 
oxysms  of  insanity.  Lucretius  wrote  his 
immortal  poem,  De  Rerum  Natura,  while 
laboring  under  mental  aberration.  Alex¬ 
ander  Cruden  compiled  his  concordance  of 
the  Bible  while  insane,  and  some  of  the 
ablest  articles  in  Aiken’s  biography  were 
written  by  a  patient  in  an  insane  asylum. 
The  most  sublime  inventions  have  sprung 
from  the  brain  of  those  laboring  under 
mental  diseases.  Exquisite  statuary  has 
stood  up  at  their  bidding,  the  canvas  has 
breathed  life  at  the  touch  of  the  insane. 
And  yet  the  doctrine  is  to  be  enforced  in 
this  case  that  the  prisoner  is  to  be  hung 
because  before  she  committed  the  act  she 
didn’t  act  like  a  raving  maniac.  It  is  not 
strange  that  the  prosecution  deny  all  these 
doctrines  and  all  these  authorities,  medical 
and  judicial,  deny  the  experience  of  all  the 
great  men  that  have  lived,  because,  before 
they  can  advance  in  this  case  one  single 
step,  they  must  all  be  trampled  down  under 
foot  and  passed  aside  as  a  feather’s 
weight.  But  you,  gentlemen,  will  not  pass 
them  aside  so  lightly — not  in  a  case  of  this 
kind,  where  we  stand  to  plead  the  cause  of 
right,  the  cause  of  justice  and  the  cause  of 
humanity  !  We  stand  here  to  plead  in  be¬ 


half  of  a  girl  who  has  been  scourge 
persecuted  to  madness.  We  stand  l 
denounce  the  crime  that  has  brougl 
to  this  position.  “  Thou  shalt  not  c* 
adultery,”  we  read  in  the  Seventh 
mandment,  and  in  the  Tenth,  “  Thoi 
not  covet  thy  neighbor’s  wife,”  j 
through  the  Old  and  New  Testame: 
penalty  of  death  is  denounced  agai: 
adulterer.  I  am  sure  you  will  exci 
if  I  read  an  extract  relating  to  this  f  | 
from  one  that  has  passed  away.  I  r 
the  great  War  Secretary,  who  ga 
mighty  energies  and  intellect  to  the  i 
ervation  of  this  gigantic  republic,  w 
the  finest  feelings  and  appreciation 
male  virtues.  In  defense  of  a  perso  i] 
trial  for  his  life,  defended  upon  the  s 
insanity  without  a  particle  of  me  die 
timony,  he  uses  this  eloquent  langoe 

The  pride  and  glory  of  the  family  is  1 
of  brothers  and  sisters.  Sprung  from  t  a 
love,  with  the  same  blood  coursing  i  f 
veins,  their  hearts  are  bound  together  b  < 
which  death  cannot  sever;  for,  wide  asi  le 
may  be  the  graves  of  a  household,  v« 
may  be  their  life  here  on  earth,  wh<  1 
rough  ocean  is  passed,  sooner  or  later  t  f ' 
rejoice  on  the  heavenly  coast  —  a  falj 
heaven.  But  when  the  adulterer  puts  •« 
wife  asunder  from  her  husband,  her  chi  is 
off  from  all  kindred  fellowship.  The  a) 
ionship  and  protection  of  a  brother  of  I  ■ 
blood  can  never  be  her’s.  No  sister  of  t,  s 
blood  can  ever  share  her  sorrow  or  r ; 
Alone,  thenceforth,  she  must  journey  ro 
life,  bowed  down  with  a  mother’s  slum  i 
does  the  evil  stop  here.  It  reaches  n  to 
aged  and  venerable  parents  of  the  'ifc 
husband  and  of  the  ruined  wife,  and  cU 
around  to  the  circle  of  relatives  and  fri«  Is  t 
cluster  around  every  hearth.  SuchaiJ» 
suits  of  the  adulterer’s  crime  on  the  h  ie- 
the  home,  not  as  it  is  painted  by  t!  !> 
fancy,  but  home  as  it  is  known  and  re«M 
by  the  law' — as  it  exists  in  the  house!  i 1 
as  it  belongs  to  the  family  of  ev<  n 
They  show  that  the  adulterer  is  the  fotf*1 
social  relation,  the  destroyer  of  every 
affection,  the  fatal  enemy  of  the  family  ad 
desolator  of  the  home.  The  crime  b<nff 
the  class  known  in  law  as  mala  in  stew 
itself — fraught  with  ruin  to  individto.i 
destruction  to  society. 

Such  being  its  nature,  we  can  easily®* 
tvhy  it  is  that  in  Holy  Writ  the  cri>  #j 1 
adulterer  is  pronounced  to  be  one  whi 
of  no  ransom  and  no  recompense.  Wi®f 
ceive  why  it  is  that  in  every  book  otfM 
and  New'  Testament  it  is  denounced. 
is,  that  by  every'  holy  lawgiver,  proA  < 
saint  it  is  condemned.  We  can  u®1. 


119 


?!  it  is  that  twice  it  is  forbidden  in  the  Ten 
.'umandments,  and  why  it  is  that  Jehovah 
diself,  from  the  tabernacle  in  the  midst  of 
ii congregation,  declared  that  “the  man  who 
omitteth  adultery  with  another  man’s  wife, 

v  he  who  committeth  adultery  with  his 
lehbor’s  wife,  shall  surely  be  put  to  death.” 
hlod’s  own  ordinance  he  was  to  be  stoned  to 
le  b,  so  that  every  family  in  Israel,  every  man, 
-vcian,  and  child  might  have  a  hand  in  the 
'U  shment  of  the  common  enemy  of  the  family, 
ijhe  Levitical  law,  the  adulteress  was  subject 
o  ie  same  punishment.  But  the  Redeemer  of 
ai  kind,  when  on  earth,  is  supposed  to  have 
heated  the  punishment  of  the  adulteress  by 
Miring  him  who  was  without  sin  to  cast  at 
te  the  first  stone.  No  such  condition,  how- 

vi  was  imposed  in  favor  of  the  adulterer, 
’be  was  no  mitigation  of  his  crime,  and  we 
nv  the  Savior’s  judgment  of  the  sin  when 
leleclared  that  “he  who  looketh  at  a  woman 
o  1st  after  her  committeth  adultery  in  his 
les.” 

ho  can  portray  the  one-millionth  part 
•f  he  evil,  misery,  and  woe  existing  in 
hi  world  to-day  which  has  been  caused 
>y  ibertines?  Go  to  your  asylums;  go, 
-s  ly  eloquent  associate  told  you  in  his 
P|iing,  to  the  gilded  palaces  of  hell, 
'e  >ld  their  fallen  inmates,  and  learn  the 
aie  of  their  ruin — and  the  same  story  of 
;h(  blighting  influences  of  the  libertine’s 
uh  will  be  told. 

y  to  the  lower  dens  of  degradation, 
mi  behold  their  miserable  inmates,  once 
l>ui>  “  created  a  little  lower  than  the 

Is,”  now  lost  to  every  womanly  in- 
d]  t,  living  in  filth,  associating  with  the 
dhfc,  whose  every  word  is  blasphemy, 
m whose  very  touch  is  death — and  then 
o'  will  see  the  handiwork  of  the  liber- 


txn 

7  to  our  asylums  for  the  insane,  those 
’ w:  l  tombs  of  the  living  dead,  and  see 
me  ifferent  phases  of  insanity;  go  through 
ike  female  portion  of  it,  ascertain  the 

ms  of  their  malady.  See  that  female, 
eiK  beautiful  and  fair,  with  her  scorched 
lips  her  wild  and  sunken  eyes,  pressed 
igkist  the  door  of  her  cell,  and  listen  to 
the  id  story  of  her  misery  and  woe.  Anon 
■he  ireaks  out  into  some  broken  strain 
ha  was  familiar  in  her  childhood  before 
the  bertine  had  breathed  upon  her.  Then 
she  ill  pray  fervently  to  be  permitted  to 
go  him,  (her  destroyer;)  and  then,  as  if 
stnjk  with  a  serpent’s  tooth,  she  cries  out 


maledictions,  and  calls  down  the  curses  of 
God  upon  his  head.  Again  she  will  shrink 
down  tremblingly  in  the  corner  of  her  cell, 
where,  chained  to  the  barren  rock  of  the 
past,  the  one  perpetual  memory,  with  beak 
and  talon  more  relentless  than  the  vul¬ 
ture’s,  preys  ceaselessly  upon  her  vitals. 
The  name  she  calls  may  not  be  Watson, 
but  it  is  the  name  of  him  who  has  caused 
neither  more  nor  less  ruin.  Oh!  gentle¬ 
men,  no  man  can  conceive  of  the  misery 
that  exists  in  the  world  to-day,  following 
on  the  track  of  the  libertine.  Wherever 
you  go  you  will  find  desolation  and  sorrow 
and  misery  in  his  track.  And  so  will  it 
ever  be;  and  when  man  and  all  his  race 
shall  have  disappeared  from  this  planet, 
ask  every  particle  of  air  still  flowing  o’er 
the  unpeopled  earth,  and  it  will  record 
the  misery  caused  by  the  libertine  — 
blighted  intellects,  blasted  hopes,  ruined 
homes,  and  dishonored  graves.  Interrogate 
every  wave  that  breaks  uninterrupted  on 
ten  thousand  desolate  shores,  and  it  will 
give  evidence  of  the  last  gurgle  of  the 
waters  which  closed  over  the  heads  of  their 
unfortunate  dying  victims. 

Now  gentlemen,  I  will  occupy  your 
attention  but  a  short  time  longer  while  I 
speak  more  directly  to  the  evidence  and 
the  facts  of  the  case.  The  evidence  in 
this  case,  outside  of  the  medical  testi¬ 
mony,  can  be  very  briefly  stated.  As  I 
said  to  you,  the  prosecution  start  out  with 
the  proposition  that  this  is  murder  in  the 
first  degree  or  nothing,  and  that  we  accept 
that  proposition.  We  say  that  it  is  mur¬ 
der  in  the  first  degree  or  nothing ;  and 
we  say  further,  that  you  are  to  decide 
this  case  upon  the  evidence,  and  we  don’t 
ask  you  to  decide  it  upon  the  ground  of 
sympathy  as  was  intimated  by  the  counsel 
in  his  opening.  All  that  we  ask  in  this 
case  is  that  you  will  apply  the  rules  of  law 
as  the  Court  will  give  them  to  you  to  the 
evidence  that  has  been  given  by  the  wit¬ 
nesses,  giving  that  evidence  its  just  and 
proper  weight,  and  then,  if  alter  you  have 
done  that  you  say  that  you  have  no  doubt 
in  your  mind  that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar 
is  guilty,  ought  to  be  hung,  say  so  by 


120 


your  verdict.  But  do  not,  I  beg  of  you, 
upon  any  insidious  insinuation  of  the 
District  Attorney,  that  notwithstanding 
your  verdict  of  guilty,  she  may  not  be 
hung,  she  has  an  appeal  to  the  Governor, 
and  she  can  go  there  for  executive  clem¬ 
ency,  and  she  may  not  be  hung,  your  ver¬ 
dict  may  not  result  in  her  death  and  there¬ 
fore  you  need  not  be  so  afraid  or  so  care¬ 
ful  about  finding  a  verdict  of  guilty. 
That  was,  as  I  understand,  the  intimation 
of  the  District  Attorney.  Whether  there 
are  mitigating  circumstances  he  didn’t 
condescend  to  tell  you.  I  don’t  know 
what  he  considers  or  what  he  will  consider 
mitigating  circumstances  in  this  case. 
That  he  will  tell  you  I  presume  when  he 
comes  to  address  you. 

But  we  accept  the  issue  tendered  by  the 
prosecution,  that  this  is  a  case  of  murder 
in  the  first  degree,  that  she  is  guilty  of 
murder  in  the  first  degree  or  nothing,  that 
your  verdict  must  be  either  guilty  or  not 
guilty.  Having  gone  over  the  medical 
portion  of  this  case,  so  far  as  the  author¬ 
ities  are  concerned,  medical  and  judicial, 
I  desire  to  come  directly  to  the  testimony. 
There  are  one  or  two  points  in  the  testi¬ 
mony  for  the  prosecution  that  I  desire 
in  the  first  place  to  allude  to,  the  first 
is  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Pixley.  Mr.  Pix- 
ley  says  that  after  he  went  out  where  Mr. 
Watson  was  lying,  at  the  foot  of  the  stairs, 
while  he  was  there  the  first  man  that  came 
afterwards  was  Dexter,  then  Mr.  Potts 
came,  and  he  saw  the  brother  comedown, 
step  over  the  body  aud  waved  his  hand 
back  toward  the  accused,  .and  said,  “  Fan¬ 
ny,  I  told  you  not  to  do  it.”  Now  when 
that  remark  was  made  the  hall  was  full, 
there  were  parties  there  standing  as  he 
says  within  three  feet  of  him,  and  not  one 
of  those  persons  is  put  upon  the  stand,  or 
did  they  hear  any  such  remark.  She  says 
she  was  up  stairs  ;  was  not  down  there 
when  her  brother  was,  but  there  is  not 
a  single  witness,  although  he  says  that  this 
hall  was  full  and  other  parties  came  there, 
because  I  had  him  specify  the  names  of 
the  persons  who  first  arrived  there  ;  they 
came  there  where  he  was,  and  not  a  single 


one  of  those  persons  is  put  upon  th  « 
to  corroborate  him  upon  that  point.  Ai 
you  are  asked  now — understand— j  i 
asked  to  find  that  there  is  no  dout  ijk 
any  point  that  is  essential  to  coi  ito 
this  crime,  that  there  is  no  doub  bo 
her  perfect  sanity,  there  is  no  dout  be 
the  fact  that  she  shot  him,  and  tin  he 
is  no  doubt  about  the  fact  that  s  i 
tended  to  shoot  him  before  she  di<  he 
him.  All  these  points,  every  eleme  tt 
goes  to  make  up  this  crime,  you  are  ft 
is  made  out  by  the  evidence  be  Dd 
reasonable  doubt.  I  ask  you,  can ;  i  s 
that  that  fact  is  proven  beyond  a  r.b 
Don’t  it  come  to  you  in  a  quesinal 
shape.  I  didn’t  pursue  the  exam  itii 
of  Mr.  Pixley,  to  any  great  extei ;  y 
know  his  relations,  his  natural  flic> 
But  not  a  single  man  is  put  uj .  li 
stand  to  corroborate  him.  I  say  i 
the  duty  of  the  prosecution  to  t  t 
other  witnesses  upon  the  stand;  tk  kn 
who  were  there  at  the  time,  precis  p  * 
were  there.  Mr.  Pixley  was  then  itni 
and  they  had  the  opportunity  to  Ibm 
him  and  if  there  had  been  anyboi  th( 
who  could  corroborate  him  he  hoc 
had  been  put  upon  the  stand,  the 
had  been  anybody  there  who  diffe  1  *i 
him  upon  that  fact,  he  should  lube 
put  upon  the  stand.  This  person  life 
not  to  be  taken  upon  any  unt-aid 
When  they  come  in  and  demar  bio 
they  must  show  a  clear  right,  witl  it « 
shadow  of  doubt  resting  upon  *b 
you  demand  blood  you  must  notu&s 
conclusions,  you  must  not  imanet'1 
this  may  be  so,  or  that  may  be  so.  utjl 
have  got  to  find,  beyond  all  re  ontl 
doubt,  every  material  fact  before  ou  a 
take  the  life  of  a  human  being.  So* 
say  that  his  testimony  upon  that  >oin'. 
entirely  unsatisfactory.  But  wl :  of  t 
suppose  he  did  hear  that  rema:.  i 
you  tell  me  what  it  proves  ?  whaft 
lishes  in  this  case.  Suppose  at  k 
brother  did  say  this,  what  does  i  pro* 
Does  it  prove  her  guilty  ?  Window 
prove  ?  Talk  about  hanging  l,a* 
upon  a  loose  remark  made  undersell® 


usances  as  lie  testifies  to,  with  persons 
;lby  him  hearing  nothing  of  the  kind; 
lsiot  worthy,  such  a  point  as  that,  of 
y  iscussion  at  all. 

I  ive  alluded  to  the  testimony  of  Cap- 
uWoglom,  and  to  that  of  Sergeant 
ire,  and  I  will  not  allude  to  their  testi- 
>1  further.  But  I  will  allude  to  the 
t  lony  of  Langan.  This  girl  was  in 
e  inds  of  the  police,— she  was  in  their 
stly  on  a  charge  of  murder.  She  is 
aged  from  the  station  house — for  what 
irlse,  heaven  only  knows,  I  don’t — 
aged  from  the  Eastern  District  to  Head 
laj'ers,  I  don’t  know  what  it  was  for, 
cliiile  on  her  way  down,  this  miserable 
ei  worse  than  a  spy,  attempts,  accord- 
g  o  his  testimony,  to  pump  facts  out  of 
gil,  unprotected,  in  the  hands  of  the 
qmder  a  charge  of  murder,  and  tells 
■ubiat  he  never  said  anything  about  it 
its,  that  he  was  present  when  the  coro- 
•r’, inquest  was  had  in  court,  took  the 
•isier  from  the  station  house  to  the 
tu  room,  where  the  inquest  was  held, 
id  ack  again  and  yet  he  says  nothing  to 
e  oroner  and  nothing  to  his  superior 
tic:  as  to  the  conversation  that  he  had 
el  ,vith  her.  He  don’t  mention  it  to 
ty  idy  until  a  week  or  so  ago.  Would 
)U|aang  a  cat  upon  such  testimony  as 
at  Would  you  give  it  the  weight  of  a 
atir  supposing  it  amounted  to  any- 
ir  ?  Take  it,  ivhat  is  it  ?  Birt  would 
mjlelieve  a  word  he  said?  I  say  this 
is«able  officer  is  a  disgrace  to  the  force 
id  ight  to  be  turned  off.  I  say,  that  any 
'liman  having  in  his  custody  a  prisoner 
ad  such  circumstances  as  he  had  this 
■isier,  who  attempts  by  trick  to  get 
utaents,  and  then  comes  into  a  court  of 
st:3  and  presents  them  for  the  purpose 
1  higing,  don’t  deserve  the  name  of  man, 
a  i.sgrace  to  the  force  and  a  disgrace  to 
ie  pmmunity.  Think  of  it.  He  made 
■>  i|jte  of  it,  but  lie  comes  in  here  after 
lisjing  lapse  of  time  and  undertakes  to 
i  run  that  stand — the  miserable  wretch 
iat  aught  to  take  advantage  of  a  person 
i  b  unfortunate  position  at  that  time — 
ie  iserable  wretch  goes  upon  the  stand 
9 


and  seeks  to  swear  the  blood  of  that  un¬ 
fortunate  prisoner  away.  Such  a  being  as 
that  is  so  utterly  beneath  the  contempt  of 
all  honest  men  that  it  is  not  necessary  to 
speak  of  him  or  allude  to  bim.  He  is  be¬ 
neath  contempt.  To  say  that  what  he  tes¬ 
tified  to  is  evidence,  would  be  an  insult  to 
common  intelligence  and  common  decency. 
I  say  that  he  is  a  miserable  wretch  and  so  is 
any  other  man,  who  under  the  circum¬ 
stances  would  attempt  to  manufacture  or 
to  get  evidence  in  that  way.  But  why 
wasn’t  it  told  before  ?  It  wasn’t  considered 
important  by  him  before,  was  it  ?  Oh,  no. 
He  didn’t  tell  it  to  the  coroner,  he  didn’t 
iutimate  to  the  coroner  that  she  had  made 
statements,  although  Captain  Woglom  was 
examined  there  as  to  the  statements  that 
she  had  made  subsequently.  They  were 
considered  important.  But  what  he  heard 
was  not  considered  important.  It  was  not 
considered  a  fact  of  sufficient  moment  by 
him  to  even  mention  to  bis  superior  officer 
— nothing  was  said  to  his  superior  officer 
upon  the  subject.  When  I  heard  that 
testimony,  and  heard  the  fact  that  he 
hadn’t  told  the  officer  or  the  coroner — 
never  had  spoken  of  it  until  recently — it 
occurred  to  me  what  my  associate  said  in  his 
opening,  and  it  was  true  ;  I  thought  I  could 
see  the  gleam,  the  glitter  of  some  of  the 
gold  that  had  been  paid  to  Charley  Spencer 
in  this  case ;  I  thought  I  could  see  the 
tools  that  were  in  the  background  looming 
up  and  creeping  out  in  this  miserable  testi¬ 
mony  of  Officer  Langan. 

I  have  attempted  to  describe  to  you  as 
best  I  could  the  character  of  the  murderer. 
But  I  ask  you  as  you  were  asked  by  my  asso¬ 
ciate  in  the  opening,  is  the  prisoner  at  the 
bar  the  material  out  of  which  murderers 
are  made  ?  What  is  her  history  in  brief  ? 
She  came  to  this  country  at  the  age  of  five 
years.  And  right  here  I  wish  to  call  your 
attention  to  a  little  fact  and  I  wish  you  to 
bear  it  in  mind.  You  will  recollect  that 
when  she  was  upon  the  stand,  undergoing 
that  terrible  ordeal — you  of  course  could 
not  have  the  slightest  suspicion  of  that 
ordeal,  taking  a  girl  like  her  under  a 
charge  of  this  kind  and  putting  her  upon 


the  stand  before  an  audience,  subjected 
to  the  scrutinizing  examination  of  counsel — 
let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  question 
that  he  asked  her,  if  she  had  never  had 
intercourse  with  a  man  where  she  boarded, 
by  the  name  of  Roberts.  He  was  particu¬ 
lar  as  to  how  her  room  was  located,  what 
rooms  they  slept  in,  particular  to  inquire 
whether  she  knew  that  he  always  slept  in 
that  room  or  not,  and  the  question  were 
asked  in  such  a  way  as  to  insinuate  in  the 
minds  of  the  jury  that  she  had  had  to  do 
with  other  men.  That  was  the  object.  I 
say  that  an  insinuation  of  that  kind,  under 
the  circumstances,  unless  the  prosecution 
had  evidence  with  which  to  back  it  up,  to 
establish  it,  was  a  gross  outrage  upon  all 
propriety  in  the  trial  of  criminal  causes. 
I  say  that  this  girl,  placed  in  that  unfortu¬ 
nate  position,  her  life  at  stake,  to  try  and 
poison  the  miuds  of  a  jury  by  throwing 
out  such  an  insinuation  as  that,  without 
the  power  to  back  it  up  by  evidence,  is  an 
outrage  upon  all  right  and  upon  all  justice, 
and  upon  that  I  take  my  appeal  to  this 
jury,  and  will  take  their  judgment  upon  it. 

In  this  connection  I  will  call  your  atten¬ 
tion  to  another  fact.  I  want  your  judg¬ 
ment  upon  that  also.  Ask  yourselves  when 
you  go  into  the  jury- room  what  you  think 
of  it,  each  man  giving  an  expression 
of  his  opinion,  and  ask  yourselves  what 
you  think  of  such  conduct  as  that  on  the 
part  of  the  prosecution,  without  attempt¬ 
ing  to  prove  anything.  You  will  recollect 
that  before  she  was  called  I  asked  one  of 
the  witnesses  a  question  in  reference  to  her 
character.  The  prosecution  didn’t  seem  to 
be  satisfied  with  the  form  of  the  question. 
My  question  called  for  the  opinion  of  the 
witness  as  to  the  character  of  the  accused — 
her  demeanor  and  conduct.  The  District 
Attorney  asked  me  what  the  object  of  the 
question  was.  He  seemed  to  put  it  in  a  shape 
as  though  he  wanted  to  commit  me  to 
opening  the  door.  I  told  him  the  object 
was  to  prove  character;  that  we  opened  the 
door  wide  open,  and  he  made  the  remark, 
“  And  we  will  walk  in.”  Have  they  done 
it  ?  They  have  had  their  drag-net  out  and 
they  have  scoured  the  cities  of  New  York 


and  Brooklyn,  and  every  place  s' 
been,  with  iheir  detectives  and  1 
hirelings,  to  see  if  they  coidd  r 
up  something  that  they  could  i 
against  the  unfortunate  prisoner  c 
her  relation  with  the  deceased,  an  tl 
have  been  unable  to  put  a  single  i 
upon  the  stand,  although  they  hai  o 
of  their  minions  howling  around  he  I 
they  dared  not  face  the  music.  1, 
opened  the  door;  we  went  into  the  q  <f 
of  character.  We  threw  down  the  gs  tl 
and  we  said  to  the  prosecution,  “  V  k 
Show7  anything  you  can  against  th  h 
acter  of  the  prisoner,  exc  pt  her  liti 
to  the  deceased.”  He  said  he  wou  wi 
in,  threw  out  his  insinuations  that  i  1 
been  guilty  with  others.  He  ha  do 
neither.  He  has  neither  proven  t  a 
nor  taken  advantage  of  the  oth, 
stands  upon  these  questions  mute-  id. 

Well,  then,  what  is  her  character '  VI 
have  they  shown  of  this  poor  broke  loi 
and  unfortunate  being  ?  What  ha  th 
shown  as  to  her  character  ?  Wha  mo 
could  we  add  ?  What  more  could  a  po 
girl  do  who  had  been  put  at  wor  ah' 
she  was  ten  years  of  age  and  kept :  adi 
employed  :  how  much  better  cl  act 
could  she  prove  than  we  have  pro n  1 
this  girl?  We  put  on  Mr.  Dais),  I* 
Sunday  School  superintendent,  wlesl 
went  a  long  time.  You  heard  w  it  i 
said  of  her:  Conduct  uniformly  go  ;  d 
took  an  interest  in  the  school;  she  w  tbvi 
— attended  every  Sunday.  We  put  11' !: 
Henshaw,  her  t<  acher:  she  attend!  th 
school  for  a  long  time,  and  what  do  Mi 
Henshaw  say  of  her?  “  Her  condugwl 
she  was  modest,  wTell  behaved ;  nrTc 
saw  anything  out  of  the  way  wit  her.. 
We  put  on  Miss  Thatcher,  another  iota 
“Her  conduct  was  good,  her  dteaM 
good  ;  she  paid  attention  to  her  md*j 
School  lessons,  took  an  interest  n  tm 
studies;  her  conduct  was  uuiforml,’?«t 
We  put  Mr.  Halloway  upon  tb*staad| 
another  superintendent  of  a  SundajchooJ 
whose  little  girl  I  believe  is  >  “I 
Court-room,  who  has  been  a  mirteritj 
angel  to  this  unfortunate  girl,  see 


123 


been  in  jail,  in  taking  her  food  ,  she 
i  her  companion.  We  have  put  him 
he  stand.  You  have  heard  his  story 
what  he  said  of  her.  Does  this 
:nnt  to  nothing?  And  we  put  Mr. 
i  r  on  the  stand  ;  he  was  her  employer  ; 
cvorked  for  him  a.  long  time,  about  two 
js  ;  you  have  heard  what  he  says  about 
i-her  conduct,  her  habit  of  industry, 
idispositiou.  We  put  Mr.  Thompson 
the  stand,  another  employer.  You 
v  heard  what  he  says  in  regard  to  her 
ciduct  uniformly  good,  modest  ;  never 
« any  indiscretion,  or  anything  out  of 
3  'ay.  Mr.  Bartlett,  who  has  lived  in 
e  ouse  with  her  a  loug  time,  commenc- 
%  bout  three  years  ago  ;  he  was  study- 
*iw  then  ;  he  was  usually  at  home  at 
gs,  and  she  was  there,  always  at  work, 
ning  home  there  at  nights — industri- 
s  rardworking.  Does  this  seem  like  a 
ir  that  would  commit  murder?  Do 
mink  that  this  shows  the  training  of  a 
ueress  ?  Ob,  no.  You  don’t  think  any 
el  thing.  If  such  a  person  as  this  could 
escuted  upon  such  testimony  as  this, 
31  would  he  no  safety  anywhere  or  for 
yne. 

B  there  was  a  fact  that  occurred  in  this 
'e  h at  I  regretted  to  see.  It  is  evident 
at  lere  had  been  some  influences  outside, 
lo  t  mean  to  speak  that  in  an  improper 
us  but  I  mean  to  say  that  there  has 
eft  spurring  on,  an  urging  forward,  a 
esng  ahead  of  this  prosecution  against 
is  irl  outside  of  the  prosecution.  We 
ve;een  the  indications  of  it  all  through 
e  ye  ;  we  have  seen  a  great  deal  more 
ibutside.  I  wish  the  parties  that  had 
iei  employed  in  this  case  had  shown 
en  elves  in  Court — had  appeared  here, 
lie;  have  not  done  it,  they  have  kept  in 
e  lckground,  but  nevertheless  they  have 
mt  he  best  they  could ;  but  they  have 
it  1  en  able  to  prove  one  word  against 
is  >or  unfortunate  being — not  one.  If 
erikad  been  any  indiscretion  on  her 
irt  ith  other  parties  that  they  could 
weiown,  it  would  have  been  paraded 
jre  ith  terrible  effect ;  and  if  the  fact 
1  e  sted,  with  the  drag-net  and  their 


minions  that  they  have  had  out,  it  would 
have  been  discovered,  and  it  would  have 
been  here  ;  and  it  would  have  been  a  ter¬ 
rible  fact  ;  it  would  have  been  a  terrible 
thing.  We  went  to  our  unfortunate  cli¬ 
ent,  and  we  both  knew  -what  they  were  at¬ 
tempting  to  do;  we  asked  her  in  the  name 
of  God  to  tell  us  the  truth — did  such  a  fact 
exist?  was  it  possible  for  them  to  prove 
such  a  fact  ?  and  if  so  tell  us  in  time,  so 
that  ■we  might  be  prepared  as  best  we  could 
to  meet  it.  One  reply — “It  is  not  true;  it 
is  false;  it  is  not  time;  never,  so  help  me 
God,  with  any  other  man  than  her  de¬ 
stroyer  and  her  own  husband.” 

We  believed  her;  and  when  it  was  sug¬ 
gested  by  the  counsel  to  send  up  to  Con¬ 
necticut,  where  she  had  worked,  and  see  if 
they  were  going  to  bring  witnesses  from 
there,  and  what  w-e  could  ascertain — after 
the  assertions  that  she  had  made,  believ¬ 
ing  as  I  did  believe  4her  assertions,  before 
her  God,  I  said  “No!  I  care  not  if  they 
bring  a  regiment  of  miserable  scamps,  they 
cannot  make  a  Jury  believe  them,  because 
she  can  tell  the  story  in  a  manner  that  will 
carry  conviction  to  the  mind  of  any  honest 
man,  and  it  was  a  base  insinuation  to  throw- 
out  that  she  had  been  guilty  of  this  for  the 
purpose  of  creating  a  prejudice  to  seek  the 
blood  of  this  child.”  But  the  door  was 
opened.  Have  they  walked  in  to  prove 
anything  in  regard  to  general  character  ? 
Not  a  word  upon  it  ;  not  a  word  upon  the 
subject  at  all — not  one! 

Then,  gentlemen,  you  come  to  the  other 
branch  of  the  case,  and  I  shall  be  but  a 
few  minutes,  because  I  feel  somewhat  ex¬ 
hausted.  We  take  the  testimony  as  to  his 
pursuing  her.  You  have  heard  her  story 
as  to  when  her  ruin  was  accomplished. 
She  was  between  fifteen  aud  sixteen  years 
of  age.  She  had  turned  fifteen  years  ; 
and  oh,  how  much  greater  was  the  crime 
on  the  part  of  the  deceased  to  accomplish 
her  ruin  under  the  circumstances  under 
which  it  was  accomplished;  how  much 
greater  was  his  crime  than  it  would  have 
been  for  any  outside  person  to  have  accom¬ 
plished  the  same  ruin  of  her.  She  was 
there  under  his  charge;  went  there  a  child; 


124 


he  had  other  eh:ldren  under  his  charge; 
she  went  there  under  him  ;  it  was  h:s  d  a‘y 
under  the  1  >w  to  protect  her ;  it  was  his 
duty  by  every  princ  pie  of  righ1  to  pro'ect 
her,  watch  over  her,  see  that  she  was  not 
wronged,  and  when  he  saw  any  indisc  re- 
tion  upon  her  put  it  would  hive  been  his 
duty  as  a  man  to  h  ive  warn  d  her  of  the 
danger.  But  instead  of  that,  with  this 
helpless  child  in  his  employ  and  under  his 
care,  fifteen  years  of  age,  he,  a  married 
man,  upwards  of  forty  years  of  age,  with 
children  her  own  age,  he  accomplished  her 
ruin.  And  yon  hear  men  say,  well,  why 
didn’t  she  leave  ?  Why  did  she  submit  ? 
Great  God  !  talk  about  a  contest  between 
a  child  and  a  man  forty  years  of  age ! 
When  he  had  accomplished  her  ruin  und  -r 
these  circumstances,  he  held  her  in  his 
grasp  as  within  a  vice,  and  she  had  to  do 
his  bidding.  Having  a  stern  father  and 
mother,  being  of  that  age,  fearing  expo¬ 
sure  and  utter  ruin,  she  could  not  get 
away  from  him.  How  did  he  pursue  her  ? 
Take  the  testimony  of  Newton.  Newton 
says  that  his  conduct  was  such  towards  her 
that  he  was  called  upon,  deeming  it  to  be 
his  duty,  to  speak  to  him  upon  the  subject, 
and  he  did  speak  to  him  upon  the  subject. 
We  were  not  permitted  to  tell  what  he 
said  to  him,  but  he  did  speak  to  him  upon 
the  subject.  Mrs.  Lowne — you  have  heard 
her  testimony  about  his  calling  there  at 
the  house  during  the  day  time,  when  the 
husband  was  absent.  He  called  there  fre¬ 
quently  during  the  day,  in  the  forenoon 
and  in  the  afternoon,  and  would  stay  a 
considerable  time.  You  heard  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Weaver  as  to  finding  him  there, 
as  to  seeing  him  go  there.  You  have  heard 
the  testimony  of  Amos,  who  also  spoke  to 
Watson  about  his  impropriety  with  the 
girls.  You  have  heard  the  testimony  of 
Maples,  who  saw  them  c  >me  out  of  the 
room,  and  you  have  heard  the  tes  imonv  of 
Winifred  and  Eliza.  Jackson,  two  little 
girls  that  were  examined  here  and  em¬ 
ployed  in  the  stine  shop,  about  his  bring¬ 
ing  oysters  and  cakes  and  candies  into  the 
shop  aud  treating  them  ;  something  un¬ 


usual,  but  if  it  had  been  done  for  a 
ous  and  a  p  oper  purpose  it  would 
bsen  entirely  excusable — it  would 
shown  a  generous  heart.  B  it  it  w; 
done  for  any  su  h  purpose  as  that. 

There,  gentlemen, is  th?  prisoner, 
(showing  l.keness)  was  taken  som< 
ago.  There  is  the  little  girl  Jackson 
you  saw  upon  the  stand,  and  there : 
position  of  a  man, the  employer,  forty 
of  age,  inducing  two  of  his  little  sho 
to  go  and  have  th  hr  likeness  token¬ 
ing  their  hands  upon  his  shoulder  1 
position  you  wo  ild  think  they  were  j 
and  d  mghters — two  little  shop  girl) 
for  the  purpose  of  warding  off  sus: 
he  sends  one  of  them  home  to  hi: 
family.  Do  you  doubt  the  story  <  I 
girl  ?  Do  you  doubt  that  the  d  i 
accomplished  her  ruin  ?  Do  yon  ) 
that  he  pursued  her  as  she  testified  '  I 
as  Captain  Woglom  says  she  stated  a 
day  after  day  ;  that  she  tried  to  ge  id 
him,  and  could  not  get  rid  of  him  ?  FI 
in  heaven’s  name,  gentlemen,  if  she 'M 
isfied  with  this  intercourse,  if  tl  ' 
agreeable  to  her,  why  is  she  here  u]  1 1 
stand  in  this  great  trial  ?  Didn’t 
to  break  it  off  ?  Wasn’t  she  anxk  tl 
he  should  desist  his  persecution  o»hi 
But  some  will  say  why  didn’t  she  OT 
How  could  she  leave  and  where  cod* 
go  ?  He  held  her  in  his  grasp  as  on| 
in  a  vice  !  She  could  not !  Wh;0M 
she  do  ?  And  up  at  New  Britain  vaal 
had  persecuted  her  to  such  an  ext  t  th 
she  became  desperate,  and  accuser iru  ■ 
his  infidelity,  he  then  begging  for 
of  his  family,  not  to  be  exposed,  ftij 
little  mercy  he  had  for  others  !  Iljwfl 
only  the  mercy  for  others  teat  k  ash 
for  himself,  this  trial  would  ha  b*| 
avoided.  If  he  had  then  ceased  li 
cutions  this  trial  would  have  been  oidJ 
But  be  still  renews  bis  persecutioij  AW 
pledging  himself  before  marriage  ri  ^ 
should  lie  the  end,  that  he  would 
lest  her  further,  he  renews  his 
tions  ;  he  follows  her  ;  as  some  -tues* 
say  she  could  not  move  anyvln'. 


125 


u.  not  go  in  nor  she  could  not  go  out, 
ane  was  not  at  her  heels,  following  her 
rid,  following  her  about. 

V'll,  gentl  men,  is  there  any  doubt 
o:  the  effect  that  this  horrible  misfor- 
ahad  upon  her.  You  have  seen  her 
t ,  the  little  girl  sitiing  therp,  but  from 
3  .nxiety  of  this  trial  not  her  natural 
Ic  but  you  see  her  round,  fresh,  rosy 
e  s.  That  was  Fanny  Hyde  when  she 
,s  er  age,  when  she  rvas  innocent  and 
a  she  was  pure  as  she  was  when  she 
r  with  Watson. 

LA  at  her  now,  a  wreck,  a  wreck  pro- 
cl  by  the  persecutions  that  have  been 
a’d  upon  her,  followed  from  pillar  to 
s  the  color  of  her  cheeks  gone,  there 
3  s  reduced  to  a  mere  wreck,  reduced 
i  skeleton  ;  not  willing  to  leave  her 
e  he  had  ruined  her  peace,  destroyed 
r  lind  and  destroyed  her  health,  he  still 
res  her,  and  when  she  comes  out  that 
y  i  her  then  condition,  he  makes  this 
irit  because  she  would  not  yield  to  his 
sis — makes  this  indecent  assault  upon 
r.:  “Vengeance  is  mine,  saith  the  Al- 
gly,  I  will  repay,” — and  then  it  was 
treason,  memory,  judgment  and  all 
svi:  of  volition  ceased,  and  without  its 
icnce  that  feeble  arm  became  the 
iithough  sure  avenger  of  the  wrongs 
ttia  l  been  heaped  upon  the  head  of 
□  f  Hyde. 

Lr  i  have  the  testimony  as  to  her  char- 
el?  What  more  could  we  do  ?  What 
s  re  d<  me  that  she  deserves  this  great 
d lament,  this  great  affliction?  What 
ilihe  done  since  she  came  to  this 
n  ry  ?  She  attended  Sunday  School, 
s 1  tended  night  school ;  with  her  feeble 
i  she  added  all  that  has  been  in  her 
w  to  the  wealth  of  this  country.  She 
■  bored  day  and  night,  and  when  she 
slot  laboring  she  was  at  school.  That 
i  lien  her  life.  Her  life  has  been  an 
rrious  one,  all  through.  She  has 
c'd  with  her  hands  and  she  has  im- 
1  her  intellect  all  that  she  con'd  ; 

:  uglit  moral  instruction  in  the  Sun- 
i'ffhool  and  at  church;  and  I  a«k  you, 
a  lias  she  done  that  this  great  affliction 


should  be  continued  any  longer  upon  this 
poor  unfortunate  victim.  Isn’t  it  enough 
to  make  one’s  heart  bleed.  Those  who 
have  children — thank  God  I  have  children 
— I  know  that  you  have  children — some  of 
you,  little  girls ;  oh,  when  you  go  home, 
tell  those  little  girls  the  story  of  Fanny 
Hyde  ;  call  them  about  you  and  tell  them 
the  story,  tell  them  how  she  has  behaved 
herself  since  she  came  to  this  country,  up 
to  the  time  that  the  deceased  accomplished 
her  ruin  ;  tell  them  how  industrious  she 
was,  tell  them  about  her  going  to  Sunday 
School,  tell  them  about  the  exhibitions  in 
which  she  has  taken  part,  tell  them  what 
her  Sunday  School  teachers  say  of  her, 
w  hat  her  employers  say  of  her,  tell  them 
the  whole  story  and  when  you  have  told 
them  that,  they  will  have  a  good  opinion 
of  Fanny  Hyde,  they  will  say  that  she  is  a 
good  girl,  that  she  did  right  to  go  to  Sun¬ 
day  School  and  to  night  school,  and  to  be 
industrious.  Tell  them  that  when  she 
was  fifteen  years  of  age,  when  she  was 
pure  and  innocent  and  virtuous,  that  she 
was  employed  by  a  man  forty  years  of  age, 
and  tell  them  that  that  man,  after  five  or 
six  months,  instead  of  protecting  her,  ac¬ 
complished  her  ruin,  mined  her  ;  and  then 
go  on  and  tell  them  her  subsequent  story, 
her  trials  and  her  misery,  bet'er  th;  n  I  c;  n 
tell  it  to  you,  and  tell  them  then  what  oc¬ 
curred  on  this  morning,  and  tell  them  that 
she  shot  him  dead  in  his  tracks  ;  ask  them 
what  should  be  done  with  her.  Oh,  gentle¬ 
men,  think  of  the  story  of  her  life  1  think 
of  what  she  has  suffered,  the  intense  agony 
that  she  has  endured.  What  must  have 
been  her  thoughts,  what  a  world  of  confu¬ 
sion  of  thought  must  have  rushed  upon 
her  mind  when — a  fact  that  is  not  disputed 
— she  was  sleeping  side  by  side  with  the 
innocent  girl,  the  daughter  of  this  girl’s 
destroyer.  What  must  have  been  her 
thoughts  then,  when  she  reflected  on 
what  she  once  was  and  what  that  pure  girl 
was,  and  who  it  was  that  had  brought 
about  her  ruin.  What  must  have  been  her 
thoughts  ?  Why,  that  was  enough  to  drive 
her  to  madness.  Refer  to  the  testimony 
of  Mrs.  Hyde,  her  mother-in-law7,  who  sits 


12f> 


by  her  side  to-day.  She  went  there  to  be 
attended  when  she  was  suffering  physically 
from  causes  produced  by  the  ill  treatment 
of  her  destroyer  ;  and  when  she  thought 
that  she  had  a  brief  respite,  the  summons 
comes  for  her  to  return — you  have  heard 
it  described  by  Mrs.  Hyde,  how  in  the 
agony  of  her  soul  she  exclaimed,  ‘  ‘  I  feel 
as  though  there  was  a  curse  hanging  over 
me.”  Yes,  there  was  a  curse,  it  was  the 
curse  of  her  destroyer,  it  was  hanging  over 
her,  it  will  follow  her  to  the  grave,  but 
God,  in  his  mercy,  I  trust;  will  not  hold  her 
accountable.  See  her  wild  look,  as  de¬ 
scribed  by  Mr.  Potts.  What  was  it  upon 
her  mind  ;  what  was  it  that  was  causing  this 
unnatural  look  ;  what  was  it  that  was 
causing  this  unnatural  expression  of  the 
eye  and  color  of  the  face  ;  what  was  it  that 
was  preying  upon  the  mind  of  this  girl 
this  morning ;  what  was  it  ?  What  was 
she  thinking  about  when  she  sat  at  the 
stove  there  ?  What  do  you  think  was  rush¬ 
ing  through  her  mind  ?  Was  that  the  act 
of  a  person  coolly  and  deliberately  contem¬ 
plating  murder  ?  Would  they  give  vent 
to  their  feelings  in  that  way,  in  contem¬ 
plating  murder  for  revenge  ?  Oh,  no.  She 
exclaims,  “  Oh,  I  wish  I  was  dead.’’  Had 
God,  in  His  mercy,  taken  her  before  she 
met  her  destroyer,  gentle  memories  would 
have  clustered  about  her  grave.  Her  life 
is  blighted,  she  is  here  a  wreck,  but  little 
left.  You  are  to  deal  with  the  wreck — you 
are  to  say  whether  tire  remainder  of  it  is 
to  be  destroyed,  or  you  will  give  an  oppor¬ 
tunity  for  her  to  repair,  so  far  as  in  her 
power,  this  great  misfortune  that  has  be¬ 
fallen  her. 

You  have  heard  the  testimony  of  Dr. 
Byrne,  who  stands  high  in  his  profession, 
whose  character  is  above  reproach,  who 
has  had  great  experience  in  the  diseases 
with  which  the  prisoner  was  afflicted  ;  he 
tells  you  the  effect  of  that  disease  upon 
the  mind,  and  he  tells  you,  upon  the  facts 
as  told  to  him  in  this  case,  and  I  leave  it 
to  you  to  say  whether  he  fairly  understood 
them  or  not,  that  she  was  not  responsible 
when  she  committed  the  act,  she  could  not 
be.  Is  his  testimony  worth  nothing  ? 


Upon  a  question  of  life  or  death  will  i 
say  that  he  is  entitled  to  no  weight  at . 
that  you  will  throw  it  aside  as  unworth  4 
consideration,  when  if  the  testimon  j 
worthy  of  consideration  and  to  be  belie  l 
then  this  girl  is  entirely  irrespons: : 
and  was  entirely  irresponsible  at  the  1 1 
she  committed  that  act?  Upon  what  the  i 
will  you  say  that  his  testimony  is  not  t  * 
regarded  ?  A  man  who  has  made  it  ii 
business  to  study  the  effect  of  just  ii 
condition  upon  the  mind  comes  upon  < 
stand  ;  a  man  of  his  standing  and  chi! is 
ter,  and  tells  you  upon  the  solemnit  >: 
an  oath  that  he  does  not  believe  she  v  t 
responsible  being  at  the  time  that  it 
committed  this  act.  Then  I  place  i* 
the  stand  a  man  who  has  had  a  larges 
perience  in  another  specialty,  that  is  r 
ticularly  the  diseases  of  the  mind  and  it 
brain  ;  ten  years  at  the  head  of  the  Bleu 
iugdale  asylum,  a  year  at  the  heara 
another  asylum  on  Blackwell’s  Island,  ic 
since  that  time  has  been  pursuing  the  s  Ij 
and  the  investigation  of  these  diseia 
He  has  made  it  a  specialty  for  a  { »i 
many  year's,  stands  high  in  his  profess  n, 
stands  high  as  a  citizen — character  a  ft 
reproach- — he  comes  and  hears  the  Id 
mony.  He  hears  the  testimony  himli 
as  it  comes  from  the  lips  of  the  witne  ■*, 
and  he  is  asked  his  opinion.  What  « 
he  say  ?  He  is  asked  a  question— 1  i‘ 
asked  to  state  a  condition  in  whicl  be 
would  expect  to  find  the  developmei  ol 
this  form  of  insanity.  He  states  it : 

I  should  suppose  that  a  person  exhibit ; « 
predisposition  to  insanity,  those  whose  genl 
health  is  marred  by  an y  cause,  those  whin 
naturally  nervous  and  excitable,  those  hi 
have  been  subjected  to  airy  great  trial  of  eii 
feelings  in  anyway,  to  cause  them  to  <  ell 
much  upon  the  subject,  to  regret  it,  and  1* 
awake  nights  and  dream  ol  it,  and  then  UipP1 
plication  of  a  great  and  sudden  exeitin  m 
some  strong  emotion — I  should  suppose  sti» 
person,  under  such  circumstances,  would* 
very  likely  to  lose  their  reason. 

Question.  And  add  to  that  at  the  time  oftto 
exciting  cause  painful  dysmenorrhoea. 
would  greatly  increase  the  probability  o>d 
A.  I  think  it  would. 

Q.  You  have  heard  some  of  the  testiino  hi 
the  case,  and  from  what  yon  have  heard  id 
the  examination  you  made,  do  you  thiutw 
prisoner  in  this  case  answers  the  deseripud 
A.  Very  fully. 


127 


:ow,  doctor,  from  the  evidence  you  have 
d  1  this  case  and  the  examination  you  have 
e.aking  all  into  consideration,  the  whole 
or'.of  the  case,  what  in  your  opinion  do  you 
di  condition  of  her  mind  was  at  the  pre- 
Li  e  of  this  homicide  ?  A.  I  have  no  doubt 
B  si;  was  insane. 

i.  responsib  e  ?  A.  Irresponsible.  I  be- 
■  e  act  was  from  the  result  of  a  sudden 
ill',  the  occasion  of  which  she  did  not  fore- 
ad  which  she  was  not  able  to  restrain;  I 
jvshe  had  no  knowledge  of  wrhat  she  was 
2;  the  time  the  shock  occurred. 


’St;. 

iu< 


’ll  is  the  testimony.  Coming  from 
a  source  as  this,  and  in  the  face  of 
stimony,  sworn  by  these  witnesses 
iderstand  the  question,  and  in  the 
all  the  authorities,  in  face  of  all 
ttimonyin  this  ease,  you  are  asked 
ia;in  your  souls  that  the  prisoner  at 
tr  has  been  guilty  of  the  crime  of 
ih.  I  will  not  insult  your  intelli- 
.cflor  an  instant  by  contemplating  such 
I  know  that  it  cannot  be;  that 
a  case  as  this  there  can  be  but  one 
cl  lion  arrived  at.  The  prosecution 
’fxpect  a  conviction  in  this  case.  I 
’tielieve  that  they  have  the  faintest 
u  convicting  this  girl;  but  they  do 
'e  hat  there  may  be  a  disagreement, 
t  le  may  have  to  go  back  to  her  cell 
mand  there  remain  at  the  pleasure  of 
pisecntion.  Oh!  gentlemen,  I  trust 
t  lat  will  not  be  brought  about.  I 
it  hat  her  sufferings  will  end  so  far  as 
1  large  is  concerned;  that  her  suffer- 
1  11  end  with  the  ending  of  this  trial, 
u;  and  believe  that  she  will  be  allowed 
e  m  to  her  family,  and  repair  as  far 
bean  the  great  misfortune  that  has  be- 
3i her.  Oh!  don’t  permit  the  hand  of 
ridon  to  oppress  her  any  longer;  lift 
0  her,  take  it  from  her.  In  the  ad- 
lifation  of  the  law  by  man  how  often 
1 3  rules  of  right  perverted.  How 
n  s  it  that  the  accused  should  be  the 
ocit,  and  how  often  is  it  that  the 
ir  are  called  upon  to  endure  the  pun- 
n  t  due  to  others.  This  poor  thing 
en  now  in  jail  since  the  26th  of 
y;  she  has  been  confined  in  a  felon’s 
Oh!  gentlemen,  she  has  suffered  a 
ad  deaths  in  feeling.  The  punish- 


’ould  be  but  slight  that  would  follow 


a  verdict  of  guilty  in  this  case  as  for  as 
any  physical  endurance  is  concerned.  She 
has  suffered  all  the  pangs  that  it  is  possible 
for  the  mind  to  suffer  now. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  but  a  few  more  words 
to  say  to  you.  But  I  must  return  you  my 
thanks  before  I  resume  my  seat  for  your 
kind  indulgence  in  listening  to  me  so  long 
in  this  case.  I  can  assure  you  that  I  feel 
deeply  in  this  case.  I  feel  from  the  bottom 
of  my  soul  that  this  girl  has  been  guilty 
of  no  crime  either  by  the  laws  of  God  or 
man.  I  feel  that  she  sits  here  to-day  as 
innocent  of  any  crime  or  any  intent  to 
commit  crime  as  any  man  in  that  jury 
box;  and  feeling  as  I  have  felt  in  this 
case,  and  seeing  her  helpless  condition,  I 
have  felt  it  my  duty  to  give  my  whole  time 
and  my  whole  attention  to  the  defense  of 
this  case,  and  I  have  been  much  assisted, 
ably  assisted,  by  those  who  have  helped 
me  in  the  case ;  and  I  can  assure  you,  gen¬ 
tlemen,  that  what  we  have  done  has  been 
done  with  the  desire  to  protect  this  girl, 
and  not  for  money;  that  we  are  working 
without  fees;  we  are  not  lawyers  talking 
with  retainers  in  our  pockets.  But  were 
this  to  take  ten  times  as  long  as  it  h«s  we 
would  never  abandon  that  girl,  but  stick 
to  her  until  the  jury  would  say  by  their 
verdict  that  she  might  go  free.  I  believe 
her  to  be  innocent;  I  believe  that  she  has 
committed  no  act  that  renders  her  account¬ 
able  by  any  law  of  God  or  man.  I  don’t 
care  what  view  of  the  case  you  may  take  ; 
take  the  view  of  the  prosecution.  You 
have  got  to  take  her  story  us  to  the  occur¬ 
rence.  Take  her  view  of  it;  take  the  tes¬ 
timony,  and  she  stands  acquitted.  But,  I 
ask  you,  if  there  was  no  other  testimony 
in  this  case,  no  medical  authorities  referred 
to,  no  judicial  authorities  referred  to,  if  I 
simply  called  your  attention  to  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Dr.  Byrne  and  Dr.  Correy,  would 
you  not  acquit  her? 

“Have  yon  heard.  Dr.  Correy,  the  evidence 
in  this  case?  what  is  your  opinion  as  to  the 
condition  of  her  mind  at  the  time  of  this  hom¬ 
icide?” 

And  he  says  under  oath: 

“I  believe  before  my  God  that  she  was 
irresponsible.” 


128 


Are  you  going  to  hang  her  after  such 
testimony  as  that  ?  Will  you  say  that 
there  is  no  doubt  in  this  ease — will  you 
■say  that  this  is  clear,  plain,  free  of  doubt. 
Oh,  no.  You  cannot  do  it  and  you  will 
not  do  it.  Not  g  doubt  ?  why  !  the  de¬ 
fense  is  perfect.  There  cannot  be  any 
question  as  to  what  the  verdict  must  be 
upon  such  evidence  as  this.  Physicians 
giving  their  opinions  under  the  sanction 
of  an  oath,  that  they  believe  that  she  was 
utterly  irresponsible,  and  giving  you  the 
reasons  why  she  was  irresponsible  at  the 
time  of  the  commission  of  that  act — oh, 
under  such  circumstances  I  know  that  it 
will  be  your  pleasure  to  hasten  to  set  her 
at  liberty,  after  the  case  shall  have  been 
committed  to  your  charge. 

If  I  have  said  anything  in  this  case  that 
seemed  to  you  wrong,  excuse  it,  ascribe  it 
to  my  interest  and  feeling  in  the  case.  I 
have  done  the  best  I  could.  I  know  that 
I  have  manifested  much  feeling,  but  it  is 
the  feeling  of  my  heart.  I  have  made 
some  criticisms  in  reference  to  the  con¬ 
duct  of  the  case  upon  the  pirt  of  the 
prosecution,  as  to  those  criticisms  1  say 
now  I  adhere  to  every  one  of  them,  and 
upon  them  I  am  ready  and  willing  to  take 
the  j  ldgment  of  this  jury.  I  have  seen  a 
good  many  things  in  this  case  since  it  has 
commenced  that  I  would  rather  not  have 
seen,  and  I  have  heard  a  great  many  things 
in  this  case  that  I  would  much  have  pre¬ 
ferred  not  to  have  heard.  I  heard  a  re¬ 
mark,  when  Mrs.  Meagher,  for  whom  this 
unfortunate  prisoner  worked  and  who  was 
in  the  habit  of  visiting  her  house,  playing 
with  the  children — fond  of  children  she 
says — when  she  was  upon  the  stand  and  I 
had  asked  her  in  regard  to  her  character, 
you  heard  what  she  said.  She  spoke  as  all 
the  witnesses  have  spoken  in  regard  to  her 
character,  she  gave  her  a  good  character, 
“she  was  a  good  girl,  industrious  girl, 
fond  of  children.”  I  heard  the  question 
suggested  to  the  District  Attorney,  from 
the  brother  of  the  deceased — “Ask  her 
why  she  left.”  He  asked  the  question, 
you  heard  the  answer.  Taking  that  fact 
and  the  miserable  detective,  and  one  or 


two  of  such  insignificant  things  as  f 
is  all  the  result  that  has  been  produt  I 
the  employment  of  outside  couns] 
the  employment  of  private  detectivjj 
all  the  machinery  that  could  be  brg 
to  bear,  and  the  lavish  expenditu  j 
money.  You  have  seen  it  creep  I 
these  words.  I  regretted  to  see  thi  u 
thought  it  would  have  been  much  J 
for  him  to  have  remained  away.  I « 
think  it  is  good  taste  that  he  sat  j 
side  the  District  Attorney.  I  didn’t  i 
it  looked  well  that  he  should  come  n 
from  Connecticut  here  to  seek  till 
blood  of  this  girl,  and  I  felt  like  mi 
to  him  that  this  was  not  his  place.  H 
should  he  come  here,  why  should  hew 
here  to  urge  on  this  prosecution,  t<| 
this  girl’s  life  blood,  to  send  her  'I 
ignominious  death  upon  the  sea  1< 
That  is  what  he  meant.  That  sugg  i 
meant  blood,  it  meant  nothing  els n 
that  has  been  the  meaning  of  thes>  >i 
side  parties  from  the  start.  It  has  e 
vengeance.  But  they  cannot  tak('e 
geance  through  this  jury,  thauk  to 
There  is  a  barrier  that  stands  be« 
their  desires,  justice  and  right,  a  t 
right  and  justice  will  here  bevindical. 

There  are  a  great  many  things  tha  u 
occurred  in  this  case  that  I  have  see 
have  seen  much  more  than  you  havt  et 
connected  with  this  case,  and  I  knowm 
more  than  you  know  as  to  the  effort! 
have  been  made  to  drag  this  girl  to  ;  i 
nominous  death  upon  the  scaffold,  it 
cannot  be  done.  Yonder  brothei  m 
come,  the  whole  crowd  may  com  t 
whole  gang  of  paid  hirelings  tba  n 
been  employed  may  come,  the  Sp« 
may  come,  and  his  minions  may  con  b 
here  sits  a  barrier  between  their  din 
justice  and  right ;  and  you  will  v 
them,  “no;  by  no  power  shall  yo  bs 
the  blood  of  that  innocent  girl.”  W1 
should  these  outside  parties,  why  on 
men  come  a  hundred  miles  voluntaiy 
seek  the  blood  of  this  unfortunat  gr 
Oh  !  gentlemen,  it  is  too  much,  it  t< 
much  ;  it  is  too  much.  Can  you  bine 
for  having  feeling  in  this  case  ?  0,  ■ 


129 


a  We  have  a  feeling  inspired  of  eter- 
itice.  How  much  more  is  this  poor 
.1  of  man’s  cruel  wrong  to  suffer.  Is 
c  enough?  Is  it  not  enough  that 
ove  her  mad,  and  caused  her  to  ex- 
rin  the  agony  of  her  soul,  “I  am 
a  upon  a  wheel  of  fire,  that  mine  own 
3  o  scald  like  molten  lead,”  and  must 
cier  now  come,  with  his  paid  minions 
i  back  ground,  and  seek  to  drag  this 
\rembling  victim  to  an  awful  and  ig~ 
bus  death  upon  the  scaffold  ?  Is 
rfc  satisfied  with  the  ruin  already 
i  it  ?  Are  you  not  prepared  to  ex- 
r  spare  her,  Watson,  spare  her,  for 
sie  of  the  name  you  bear.  Enough 
i  name  has  she  suffered  already. 
y  the  love  of  God  and  for  the  sake  of  His 
ii ,  spare  her  broken  life ;  don’t  seek  to 
p  upon  the  fallen  and  undone.  She  may 


meet  them  no  more  in  this  life,  they  may  forget 
her  mortal  agonies  in  the  busy  throng  of  the 
world,  but  there  comes  a  day  when  he  who 
murdered  her  peace  and  they  who  seek  to 
murder  her  life  will  meet  their  victim  before 
the  Great  Judge,  in  the  court  above  the  sun ; 
where  misfortune  is  not  a  crime,  and  where 
earthly  distinctions  fade  away;  where  the  poor 
are  rich  and.  the  merciful  are  blest;  where  the 
weak  are  strong  and  the  oppressor’s  rod  is 
broken,  and  in  that  awful  presence  they  will  be 
called  to  answer  why,  at  their  hands,  Fanny 
Hyde  was  scourged  to  madness  and  to  death.  ” 

Ob,  gentlemen,  I  beg  of  you  as  you  love 
your  families,  as  you  love  your  children, 
by  your  hope  of  salvation  hereafter,  by 
your  expectation  of  mercy,  I  ask  you  to 
let  this  prisoner  go  free,  let  her  return  to 
her  home.  Oh,  lift  the  great  load  that 
now  oppresses  her  ;  say  to  her,  you  are  in¬ 
nocent,  God  bless  you,  God  bless  you, 
Fanny  Hyde. 


130 


SUMMING  UP  OF  THE  DISTRICT  ATTORNEY. 


Mr.  BRITTON  said  :  If  it  please  the 
Court,  and  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury.  It 
affords  me  great  pleasure  to  be  able  to 
congratulate  you  ou  this  bright  and  sunny 
morning,  that  we  are  all  about  to  arrive  at 
the  conclusion  of  this  trial, — a  tidal  in 
more  than  one  respect  extraordinary  in 
its  character,  extraordinary  in  the  nature 
of  the  defense,  under  the  circumstances 
interposed,  and  quite  as  extraordinary  in 
the  more  peculiar  features  of  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  the  case  by  the  defense.  And,  in 
another  particular,  I  might  add,  unusually 
extraordinary.  This  trial  has  continued  for 
live  long  days.  During  that  period  no 
one  can  say  that  this  juiy  have  not  given 
this  case  all  the  attention,  all  the  candor, 
and  all  the  care  in  its  consideration 
which  could  possibly  be  given  to  any 
case,  more  or  less  important.  And  what¬ 
ever  verdict  may  ultimately  be  rendered, 
it  will  become  no  man  to  say  that  there 
was  any  want  of  attention,  care  or  consid¬ 
eration  on  the  part  of  this  jury.  Before 
proceeding  to  a  discussion  of  what  I  deem 
to  be  the  merits  of  this  case  especially  in 
controversy,  tin  re  are  some  things  which 
have  occurred  during  the  trial,  collateral 
to  such  merits,  which,  it  seems  to  me,  re¬ 
quire  some  passing  nctiee  from  me. 

It  has  been  considered  proper,  on  the 
part  of  the  counsel  for  the  defense,  to 
make  some  criticisms  on  the  conduct  of 
the  case  by  the  District  Attorney,  and  he 
has  thought  proper  to  make  these  criticisms 
in  a  manner  and  in  a  style  which  may  be, 
under  the  circumstances,  satisfactory  to 
him.  It  has  been  charged  that  the  Dis¬ 
trict  Attorney  has  exhibited  an  improper 
and  undue  zeal  in  the  prosecution  of  the 
case.  It  has  been  charged  that  the  Dis¬ 
trict  Attorney  has  quarrelled  with  the 
court.  Well,  gentlemen,  the  time  has  not 
yet  arrived  in  the  County  of  Kings  when 
the  present  District  Attorney  of  this 
county  feels  it  incumbent  upon  him  to 
defend  himself  against  such  charges  from 


the  officer  wTho  preceded  him.  It  is 
have  caused  a  smile  upon  the  counter  :« 
of  some  of  the  gentlemen  in  this  m 
room,  who  remember  his  action  d  nj 
his  nine  years  of  official  career,  to  aa 
heard  him  arraign  me  on  charges  like  t  se. 
But,  gentlemen,  if  it  were  true  that  I  a* 
guilty  of  acts  that  make  me  amenab  u 
these  charges,  I  certainly  was  not  f  Ity 
of  them  without  distinguished  precec  is. 
The  counsel  himself,  when  he  read  t<  01 
the  opening  of  the  District  Attorn  of 
Washington  City,  in  order  to  shov  os 
what  District  Attorneys  might  do,  »■ 
nished  you  a  comment  on  that  remarl  nd 
I  submit  to  you  when  you  heard  ul 
opening  of  that  District  Attorney  .a 
read  to  you,  whether  it  occurred  tc  on 
to  contrast  that  opening  with  the  opmg 
made  by  the  District  Attorney  in  this  se. 
While  it  may  have  been — probably 1  — 
much  more  able,  perhaps  it  occurrt  tc 
you  that  it  breathed  a  spirit  which  on 
did  not  discover  in  the  opening  re. 
But  why,  why  go  to  Washington  •  a 
precedent  ?  Here  in  our  own  neig  or 
hood  a  precedent  may  be  found,  anone 
not  remote. 

Gentlemen,  a  case  of  homicide  or  al 
murder  was  pending  before  a  distiii gined 
judge — a  judge  whose  character  and  po¬ 
tation  for  judicial  ability,  high  lionouid 
integrity  is  surpassed  by  none  io  liii 
State,  a  judge  whom  some  of  you,  g  tle- 
men,  may  perhaps  personally  know,  bl 
case  was, — as  all  criminal  cases  are,—  ps- 
euted  by  a  District  Att  omey.  At  the  osf 
of  that  case  the  jury  did  not  agree  in  hit 
verdict.  That  trial  was  pressed  wi  » 
zeal  compared  to  which  the  fires  oltlu 
zeal  in  this  would  pale  into  insignifioioa 
But  in  that  the  court  and  the  U  riel 
Attorney  differed  some  as  to  the  1; .  ** 
sometimes  happens,  and  as  has  hapjoel 
on  this  trial.  After  the  trial,  applied^ 
was  made  in  that  case,  as  is  usual  imoli 
cases,  for  the  bailing  of  the  prison-  1 


131 


n,  state  to  you  what  occurred,  or 
t')  controversy  between  the  District 
ni  and  the  judge,  before  whom  such 
chon  was  made,  was.  Suffice  it  for 
o  ay  that,  as  a  result  of  these  pro- 
n  i,  that  District  Attorney,  who  has 
aid  me  the  precedent  to  which  I 
r  prred,  thought  proper  to  address  a 
nication  through  the  public  prints, 
1  will  read  to  you  : 

District  Attorney’s  Office, 

King’s  County,  Brooklyn, 
February  12,  1870. 

■  iver  Thieves,  Cut-’hroats  and  Murderers 
Nt  York  and  Brooklyn  : 
llm I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge 
co  it  of  the  numerous  communications 
tljaddressed  to  me,  by  the  members  of 
pc/erful  fraternity  in  reference  to  Edward 
.  ]  q. ,  and  in  answer  thereto  respectfully 
a  iu  that  that  gentleman  has  been  admit- 
)  fc’l.  The  delay  in  informing  you  of  the 
c iumstance  was  caused  entirely  by  my 
an :  of  the  fact  before  the  official  announce- 
th  morning.  But  you,  whose  sources  of  in¬ 
fill  are  so  much  better  than  mine,  that  you 
awe  of  the  result  in  Cherry  street  two  days 
w:  readily  and  kindly  excuse  the  one 
iio,  on  my  part,  and  in  view  of  the  satis¬ 
fy  inclusion  will  probably  be  good  enough 
■eg  the  intentions  so  warmly  expressed  to 
If  the  communications  already  referred 

ee:  it  all  the  more  necessary  to  call  your 
Iio;  to  this  subject,  as  the  immunity  here- 
i  jcasionally  enjoyed  by  you  in  your 
avthy  business  has  been  recently  in- 
rill  such  an  extent  as  to  render  murder 
oo  yn  entirely  safe  hereafter,  and  no  risk 
;v(  attaches  to  the  felonious  taking  of 
n  e.  Having  accomplished  all  that  you 
\  id  having  strong  and  reliable  assur- 
o;  inflection  hereafter,  in  whatever  you 
do  -;ou  will  at  once  perceive,  Messrs.  River 
ref  Cut-throats  and  Murderers,  that  no 
uti  necessity  at  present  exists  for  the  de- 
do  of  my  insignificant  life.  And  this 
:  si  may  I  be  permitted  to  indulge  in  the 
th  you  will  simply  permit  me  to  live  a 
ti  3  longer,  at  least  until  I  again  offend 
ttepting  to  bring  any  of  your  distin- 
ednembers  to  justice?  Besides,  gentle- 
as  our  business  is  done  out  of  court  and 
in  ourt,  we  will  not  necessarily  conflict 
lte,  and  as  your  business  is  done  out  of 
byre  mine  begins  in  court,  we  will  not 
sa  ^y  quarrel  as  before, 
av  he  honor  to  subscribe  myself, 

S  D.  Morris. 


>w  gentlemen,  accompanying  this  let- 
fei, certain  declarations  made  by  that 
nc  Attorney  who  arraigns  me  here, 
or  tree  days  after  the  communication 


I  have  here  mentioned,  referring  to  the 
death  of  D.  S.  Yoorhees,  who  was  shot  by 
one  Chambers  in  cold  blood  in  South 
Brooklyn.  With  reference  to  that  occur¬ 
rence  the  District  Attorney  said  : 

Does  any  one  believe  that  if  Edward  Perry 
had  met  with  his  deserts — if  he  had  been 
promptly  convicted  and  sentenced,  this  would 
have  occurred?  No,  sir.  I  believe  it  is 
the  result  of  the  drunken  jubilee  which  followed 
Judge  Gilbert’s  decision  to  admit  Perry  to  bail. 
The  thieves  and  murderers  have  become  abso¬ 
lutely  maddened  by  their  successes. 

Well,  gentlemen,  it  is  a  peculiar  com¬ 
ment  to  make  on  that — that  when  this 
Chambers  was  tried  for  this  last-mentioned 
offense,  and  that  man  came  into  this  court¬ 
room  prosecuted  by  this  same  District 
Attorney  for  a  murder,  which  he  says  was 
committed  because  Perry  was  held  to  bail, 
that  it  did  not  take  long  for  the  jury  to 
decide,  with  the  acquiescence  of  the  Dis¬ 
trict  Attorney,  that  that  man  was  insane  ; 
and  he  was  sent  to  the  Lunatic  Asylum. 
This  was  one  of  the  cases  cited  by  the 
learned  counsel  on  the  other  side  yester¬ 
day,  if  I  remember  rightly.  During  this 
controversy  in  regard  to  bail  in  that  case, 
tried  by  such  a  court,  and  where  the  jury 
impanneled  by  such  a  Court  had  disagreed, 
certain  affidavits  were  made,  and  among 
them  an  affidavit  of  the  distinguished  Dis¬ 
trict  Attorney,  wherein  he  detailed  certain 
private  conversations  which  he  alleged  had 
occurred  between  him  and  the  Judge  who 
heard  the  case  and  presided  on  the  trial. 
And  when  his  Honor,  Judge  Gilbert,  came 
to  write  an  opinion  on  this  question  of 
holding  to  bail,  he  makes  use  of  this  lan¬ 
guage  reported  in  this  Book  of  Reports  : 

In  regard  to  the  statements  contained  in  the 
affidavit  of  S.  D.  Morris  relative  to  what  oc¬ 
curred  between  the  presiding  justice  and  him¬ 
self  immediately  after  the  first  trial,  I  forbear 
to  comment.  This  statement  may  be  fitly  re¬ 
served  for  investigation  elsewhere. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  take  it,  that  if  the 
present  District  Attorney  had  done  the 
things  which  I  have  detailed  to  you  here, 
and  the  counsel  who  had  arraigned  him 
before  you  in  this  trial,  had  been  the  indi¬ 
vidual  defending  Edward  Perry  on  this 
occasion,  you  would  have  heard  his  clarion 
voice  throughout  this  court-house  and  into 


132 


the  street  in  comments  upon  the  “zeal,” 
the  “improper  ardor,”  and  the  “improper 
interference  ”  on  the  part  of  the  District 
Attorney,  outside  of  his  legi'imate  duties 
in  the  case  ;  and  you  -would  have  heard 
him  denounce  the  impropriety  of  any  Dis¬ 
trict  Attorney  undertaking  before  the  pub¬ 
lic  to  drag  through  the  mire  of  such  a 
letter,  and  through  the  mire  he  himself 
created,  such  a  judge  as  rendered  that  de¬ 
cision,  Judge  Jasper  W.  Gilbert,  to  whom 
I  have  refern  d. 

But,  geutlemen,  it  is  unusual  for  coun¬ 
sel  in  the  trial  of  a  case  of  this  importance 
— and  I  beg  your  pardon  and  the  pardon 
of  the  Court  for  referring  to  this  thing  to 
the  extent  I  have,  I  feel  impelled  to  do  it 
from  what  I  considered  an  unwarrantable 
and  gross  attack  in  language  and  manner 
made  upon  me  by  counsel  on  the  other 
side — it  is  unseemly  that  counsel  should 
be  wrangling  personally  through  a  trial  of 
this  nature  over  the  remains  of  a  man 
lying  low  in  his  grave  by  the  hand  of  vio¬ 
lence,  and  on  the  trial  of  a  woman  who  is 
charged  with  his  deliberate  murder.  But, 
gentlemen,  no  remarks  that  have  been 
made  shall  swerve  me  from  what  I  deem  to 
be  my  just  duty  in  the  case.  I  had  intend¬ 
ed,  as  I  think  it  was  due  to  you  and  my¬ 
self,  to  refer  to  one  circumstance  which 
has  occurred  in  this  trial,  on  my  behalf,  in 
my  summing  up,  which  I  should  have  done 
whether  or  not  any  of  these  remarks  had 
been  made,  and  which  I  shall  not  be  de¬ 
terred  from  doing  by  what  has  been  said 
on  this  occasion.  Your  attention  has  been 
called  to  the  fact  that  I  asked  a  question 
of  this  prisoner  while  on  the  stand  as  to 
her  conduct  while  in  New  Britain,  Conn.  ; 
and  that  I  did  not  follow  it  up  with  any 
testimony  tending  to  show  that  the  ques¬ 
tion  which  I  asked  her  was  pertinent  to 
any  evidence  subsequently  to  be  intro¬ 
duced.  Now,  gentlemen,  it  was  not  neces¬ 
sary,  in  one  sense,  to  make  a  criticism  upon 
that  by  offensive  imputations  upon  motives. 
It  was  fair  and  just,  if  the  counsel  thought 
proper,  to  make  a  criticism  upon  that  cir¬ 
cumstance  to  this  jury  ;  and  it  was  equally 
fair  and  just  that  I,  as  I  intended  to  do, 


should  give  the  prisoner  here  her  jm  1 
in  that  regard.  When  I  asked  the  « 
tion  I  believed  I  had  testimony  i  J 
case  which  I  should  introduce,  tend 
contradict  the  evidence  for  whicl  j 
would  be  the  foundation.  Believing  M 
I  asked  the  question.  The  test: « 
through  some  delay  in  some  respeih 
not  arrived — it  was  from  abroad — so  g 
did  not  know  it  in  its  length  and  bi  11 
After  this  question  had  been  aske  a 
on  the  adjournment,  when  I  had  oj:j| 
nity  to  inquire  fully  into  the  partial  ■$ 
that  evidence,  I  found  that,  in  my  o]  it 
in  justice  to  all  parties  concerne  -t 
prison  ei  as  well  as  the  people — tl  t 
testimony  was  not  such  as  I  ought  i 
troduce.  It  was  true  there  was  a  f  i< 
tion  to  a  certain  extent ;  but  I  ft!  tl 
this  prisoner,  under  the  circumstai  s 
this  case,  ought  not  to  be  arraigned  t 
prosecuting  officer  of  this  county  f  a 
acts  outside  of  those  developed  in  e  m 
tion  with  this  trial  legitimately,  a  t 
offense  charged  upon  her,  unless  tl  e' 
dence  was  clear,  conclusive  and  overek 
ing.  Feeling  in  that  way,  I  introdnd 
evidence  on  the  subject. 

Now,  gentlemen,  this  prisoner  is  eitk 
and  I  say  it  cheerfully,  to  all  the  ad^  tl 
of  that  fact.  She  is  to  be  tried  bef<  jj 
and  before  this  Court  on  the  tesjo 
relating  to  this  case  ;  and  if  it  wen-os 
ble — which,  I  believe,  it  cannot  btii 
could  by  any  possibility  have  inflm 
your  minds  adversely  to  her,  I  beg  jl 
to  divest  your  minds  of  it  at  once! 
just  to  her.  But,  gentlemen,  that  b* 
said  in  justice  to  this  prisoner.  il| 
been  charged  on  me  by  the  couidf 
the  other  s  de,  that  in  asking  this  qW 
I  was  seeking  to  take  an  unfair  adw 
of  this  woman.  Is  there  a  man )  1 
senses — is  there  a  man  who  knows  'on| 
to  put  two  ideas  together  and  draw  cfl 
elusion  from  them  who  does  not  knf  ti 
an  act  of  that-  kind  not  followed  up»iu 
prejudice  the  case  of  the  people  id B 
the  case  of  the  prisoner?  Doesrv® 
suppose,  that  I  was  not  aware  whel  a 
not  introduce  this  evidence  for  tliete** 


X3-3 


iave  stated,  that  if  it  -were  not  fol- 
xnp  by  such  evidence  that  it  would 
bject  of  comment  to  this  jury,  and 
,  ley  would  justly  feel  tint  it  was  a 
jin  which  ought  not  to  prejudice  the 
oil'  ?  Such  a  proposition  is  unworthy 
:  nn  who  charged  it.  Now,  gentlemen, 
l  av.said  all  I  propose  to  say  to  you,  so 
a  .  am  concerned,  connected  with  my 
ndfet  of  this  case. 

jnot  content  with  charging  upon  the 
1 1  Attorney  improper  motives  and 
n  r  conduct  in  the  prosecution  of  the 
,  n  could  not  keep  from  abasing  and 
l  yig  the  afflicted  and  innocent  family, 

>  is  lost  irs  head.  The  only  brother, 
10  lilt  that  lie  had  some  interest  in  the 
lsdof  the  death  of  a  brother  whom  he 
othougbt  proper  to  come  into  this 
ir!  room,  and  at  my  request  to  seat 
:s f  by  my  side,  in  order  that  I  might, 
net  be,  ask  him  occasional  questions  re- 
n.  to  the  facts  as  they  were  developed 
tl  trial.  Is  not  that  all,  gentlemen  ? 
as  lything  else  done  by  him  as  the  sub¬ 
's-  '  criticism  before  this  Court  ?  The 
n  1  upon  that  tells  you  that  this  family 
■  ‘lifter  blood,”  and  he  reiterates  it  iu 
m  and  manner  calculated  to  impress 
i  th  the  inhumanity  and  brutality  of 
is  dieted  family.  Gentlemen,  suppose 


your  case.  Suppose  you  lived  here 
-3:  oklyn  and  had  an  only  and  dearly  be- 
vet  brother,  whom  you  believed— what- 
<jr  tilers  might  think — was  the  soul  of 
me  of  kindness,  affection,  and  gentle- 
■s  nd  suddenly  the  anouncement  comes 
1  y — you  being  a  hundred  miles  distant 
th  your  brother  had  been  shot  down, 
tl  prime  of  life,  and  in  the  strength  of 
‘iiiod  ;  and,  connected  with  that,  there 
m-  news  to  you,  through  the  public 
'  in ,  that,  associated  with  the  cause  of 
is  <  ath,  was  the  charge  of  a  great  and 
'ue  wrong  —  a  wrong  which,  if  true, 
-lid  1  to  blast  the  reputation  of  your 
fo‘  sr,  tended  to  blast-  the  reputation  of 
is  mily— of  the  afflicted  wife  and  five 
incut  children — tended  to  blast  your 
wn  iput-ation  ;  and  von  hastened  to  the 
lenlof  misfortune  to  ascertain  the  facts, 


and  on  arriving  there  you  would  inquire 
as  to  what  were  those  facts,  you  would  in¬ 
quire,  whether  you  had  mistaken  the  char¬ 
acter  of  this  brother,  and  you  would  en¬ 
deavor  to  inquire  whether  he  had  been 
struck  down  murderously,  iu  cold  blood, 
or  whether  he  had  done  something  or 
other  to  merit  that  fate.  Well,  gentlemen, 
on  making  these  inquiries  you  still  feel, 
as  this  brother  fepls,  that  this  charge  is 
unfounded.  And  suppose  that  intelligence 
be  conveyed  to  his  afflicted  wife,  and  it  is 
a  source  of  consolation  to  her  in  her  widow¬ 
hood  and  distress,  and  she,  knowing  him 
to  have  been  a  kind  and  loving  husband, 
still  believed  him  to  be  a  noble  specimen 
of  a  man,  where  is  the  hand,  whatever  the 
fact  might  be,  that  would  tear  down  that 
fabric  or  confidence  ?  Well,  the  person 
alleged  to  have  committed  this  offence  is 
to  be  tried.  Are  you  now  to  lose  all 
interest  in  the  case  ?  You  know  that  on 
that  trial  your  brother’s  reputation  is  to  be 
assailed.  You  believe  him  to  be  innocent. 
Are  you  to  lie  supinely  by,  stay  at  your 
place  of  residence,  and  let  the  matter  rest 
there  ?  and  if  you  do  take  sufficient  in¬ 
terest  in  the  matter  to  be  present  at  the 
trial  of  the  case,  and  you  are  invited  by 
the  District  Attorney,  who  is  practically 
here,  so  far  as  the  case  requires  it,  to  de¬ 
fend  the  reputation  of  the  deceased,  and 
you  happen  to  suggest  a  question,  wliat 
would  you  think,  then,  among  strangers, 
there  where  your  brother  has  been  mur¬ 
dered,  where  you  have  no  friends  to  stand 
by  or  sympathize  with  yon,  to  be  called  a 
“bloodhound,”  and  to  be  told  that  you 
are  “after  blood,”  that  you  are  hounding 
this  “  girl  ” — as  she  is  called — to  her  death  ? 

Gentlemen,  this  is  a  specimen  of  the 
fairness,  of  the  honor,  the  candor,  with 
which  this  trial  is  conducted  by  the  coun¬ 
sel  for  the  defense.  But  that  is  not  all. 
We  are  told  in  the  next  breath  that  this 
“family” — not  confined  to  the  brother — 
that  this  family  all  the  time  since  the  death 
have  been  hounding  this  prisoner,  trying 
to  drive  her  on  to  death  and  the  gallows. 
Who  are  this  family  ?  That  widow  who 
came  on  this  stand  is  the  mother  of  that 


134 


family  ;  that  widow  who,  from  no  fault  of 
her  own,  of  all  the  parties  before  the  Court 
the  only  innocent  one,  so  far  as  this  testi¬ 
mony  develops,  is  the  head  of  that  family; 
and  in  her  affliction,  in  her  bereavement, 
innocent  as  she  is,  charged  with  no  offence, 
-he  is  called  a  bloodhound  by  a  counsel 
standing  in  defense  of  a  woman  who  is  con¬ 
ceded  to  be  guilty  of  one  heinous  offense, 
and  is  told  that  she  lias  hounded  this 
prisoner  for  weeks  and  months,  from  the 
time  of  this  homicide  to  this  trial.  Who 
else  constitute  this  family?  Five  children  ; 
one  of  them  an  innocent  girl  of  fifteen  or 
sixteen  years  of  age,  and  from  that  down 
to  a  mere  infant.  This  is  the  family  that 
is  “  hounding  this  innocent  person  to  her 
death !”  Gentlemen,  it  is  not  necessary 
for  me  to  say  to  you  that  there  is  not  one 
word  of  evidence  in  this  case  tending  in 
the  remotest  degree  to  indicate  such  a 
state  of  facts.  And  more,  gentlemen, 
there  is  not  one  word  of  truth  in  the  asser¬ 
tion. 

I  bear  witness  here  to-day.  and  I  do  it 
cheerfully,  on  my  honor  as  a  man,  on 
my  professional  honor  and  on  my  official 
honor,  that  I  never  knew  a  family,  afflicted 
as  this  family  has  been,  including  the 
brother,  who  have  conducted  themselves, 
so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  see,  with  such 
propriety  and  such  peculiar  delicacy.  This 
brother  has  shown  no  disposition  in  any¬ 
thing  or  everything  he  has  ever  said  to  me 
in  this  case  which  indicated  that  he  had 
any  feeling  of  hostility  or  reveDge  for  this 
prisoner.  He  has  felt  a  solicitude  for  his 
brother’s  reputation,  and  what  brother 
would  not?  Beyond  that  no  feeling  has 
been  exhibited;  and  I  regretted  exceed¬ 
ingly  to  hear,  in  the  opening  by  that  coun¬ 
sel,  who  is  the  soul  of  honor,  who  would 
not  make  a  statement  in  this  Court  which 
he  did  not  believe  to  be  true,  hardly  to 
save  his  own  life — to  hear  him  make  the 
charge.  Bat  I  knew  his  opinion  came 
from  others;  I  knew  it  must  necessarily 
come  from  others,  and  that  he  was  not 
responsible  for  it. 

Now,  gentlemen,  let  me  state  it  in 
another  way  to  you,  and  see  what  you 


think  of  this:  Suppose  I  should  c< 
before  the  jury,  without  evidenc  m> 
pendent  of  the  testimony  in  the 
my  own  responsibility,  with  nothini  «(e, 
the  jury  to  warrant  it,  nothing  be  eft 
jury  to  indicate  it,  nothing  before  mil 
justify  such  a  remark,  and  say  this  tm 
“  Gentlemen,  here  is  a  woman  wt  eu) 
in  life,  voluntarily  entered  into  'hr 
tation  with  a  man  much  her  8(  or  i 
years.  She  knew  he  had  a  wife  1  hi 
children.  Knew  that  he  was  a  an 
high  reputation,  that  he  loved  his  mo 
was  a  father  to  his  children  and  hu 
band  to  his  wife  that  they  were  pi  .d « 
Nevertheless,  with  that  knowledge  b 
mind,  conscious  of  this  relation  f  tl 
party  wdth  his  family,  she  exe>  i  b 
wiles  through  her  feminine  infhi  ce 
that  the  first  time  in  all  his  life  re  w 
allured  away  from  those  duties  v  oh  I 
owed  to  that  family;  and  that  sh<  act: 
ued  by  these  wiles  that  she  hadrrc' 
over  him,  and,  for  a  year  or  a  yes  ami 
half,  thus  to  seduce  him  from  hi 'ami 
ties;  that  while  continuing  this  int  mu 
she  gets  married,  and  yet  still  cont  ae* ! 
beguile  him  from  his  duty  by  mti 
charms  than  those  of  his  home,  til. 
length,  tired  of  him,  she  cloyed  f  ft 
man,  so  much  her  senior.  She  As 
shake  him  off;  but  he  had  become  acfe 
to  her,  improperly  attached  to  h  all 
terously  attached  to  her,  if  you  ilea 
and  he  would  not  leave  at  her  idin 
she  then  prepares  herself  with  put 
and  shoots  him.  Now  suppose  u  b 
lieve  that  this  brother  don’t  beli  i  til 
don’t  believe  any  of  it  except  tl  shoo 
ing;  this  wife  don’t  believe  it — shealiw 
her  husband  was  as  pure  as  an; nan 
the  time  he  met  his  death.  Bu  asm 
even  that  state  of  facts,  assume  :>t  * 
the  belief  of  these  parties,  are  1  \v,  ta 
cause  they  interfered  to  the  extit  J» 
have  seen  on  this  trial — one  to  a* 
ness  and  the  other  to  suggest  a  qv  tion 
to  be  told  they  are  “  after  blood  ”  ndl 
“houndiug  an  innocent  creature!  8 
you  have  been  told  of  extra  co^eU 
Charley  Spencer,  of  the  gold  tit  lb 


135 


v  as  been  paid  to  him  to  conduct  this 
a  Now,  gentlemen,  I  ask  you  in  all 
mon  candor,  as  fair,  honorable  men, 
iner  that  was  a  statement  to  make  in 
klourt?  Are  you  here  to  try  this  case 
>o  the  evidence,  or  are  you  here  to  try 
c  slanderous  statements  of  counsel? 
uuld  not  have  been  a  very  heinous 
fete  if  this  family  had  employ  d  asso¬ 
rt  counsel.  The  gentleman  who  happens 
lid  the  office  of  District  Attorney  is 
>r  aratively  fresh  in  the  office,  having 
eefcly  been  elected,  and  they,  knowing 
s  i  perience  is  comparatively  limited  in 
unal  prosecutions,  might  naturally  feel 
a  tie  might  desire  the  aid  of  counsel  of 
puence.  Such  cases  are  not  unusual, 
re  existed  in  most  of  the  trials  to  which 
utel  alluded  yesterday.  Scarcely  a  case 
te  importance  of  this  has  been  tried 
itbut  two  or  more  counsel  on  each  side, 

1  le  more  might  it  be  excused  in  con- 
le  tion  of  the  four  distinguished  coun- 
10  appear  in  this  case  for  the  defense, 
at  e  will  dispel  this  illusion.  There  is 
\j  of  meeting  this  allegation  except 
r  cinter  allegation.  It  has  no  proof  in 
ie  ,se,  and  therefore  no  proof  can  be 
or  tit.  to  meet  it;  but  let  me  assure  you, 
utmeu,  that  this  structure  has  been 
art  without  a  particle  of  foundation, 
f;  as  I  know  and  am  informed  by  the 
mi;,  and  every  one  connected  with  it, 
r.  pencer  was  never  retained  by  them 
tis  case,  and  has  never  been  paid  a 
>ilafor  services.  Mr.  Spencer  has  not, 

1  in  knowledge,  had  anything  to  do  with 
us  ,se  from  the  hour  it  came  into  the 
ic  of  the  public  officer  of  this  county 
1  th  moment  of  his  addressing  you  here. , 
-1c  look  at  all  this.  What  do  you 
i  ubf  this  manner  of  conducting  a  case? 
halo  you  think  of  this  way  of  seeking 
>  iiuence  a  jury  against  an  innocent 
mi  ?  What  do  you  think  of  this  way 
liking  a  jury  believe  this  girl  is 
ho  ided  to  her  death?”  Might  not  this 
mi]  say  with  far  more  justice  that  this 
ian  iviog  been  shot,  the  counsel,  under 
m  iipiration  of  this  prisoner,  seeks  to 
mmi  his  memory  in  the  cold  grave,  and 


not  content  with  that  to  blast  the  reputa 
tion  and  character  of  the  children  whom 
he  has  left  behind  him? 

But,  gentlemen,  it  has  been  charged 
upon  me  that  I  have  feeling  in  the  case. 
Why,  of  course,  I  have;  I  have  never  said 
to  this  Court  nor  to  this  jury  that  I  had 
not  feeling.  What!  a  District  Attorney,  a 
member  of  an  honorable  profession,  have 
no  feeling  in  a  case  like  this?  I  said  to 
this  jury  in  the  opening  that  I  had  no 
feeling  arising  from  professional  pride. 
That  is  what  I  said  to  this  jury.  I  said 
that  on  such  a  trial  as  this  it  would  be  de¬ 
grading  to  a  public  officer  to  indulge  in 
any  feeling  of  professional  pride.  That  is 
what  I  said  to  this  jury.  But  that  was 
not  discarding  all  feeling.  And  whatever 
feeling  I  had  when  I  came  into  this  case 
has  since  been  increased;  and  it  exists 
now,  gentlemen,  and  it  is  a  feeling  high 
above  this  petty,  contemptible  feeling  that 
has  been  referred  to,  a  feeling  that  as  the 
result  of  this  trial  justice  may  be  done 
to  the  people,  and  that  justice  may  be 
done  to  this  prisoner;  and  a  feeling  grown 
out  of  the  fact  that  this  defense  is  con¬ 
ducted  upon  an  hypothesis  which,  if  suc¬ 
cessful,  would  strike  at  the  foundation  of 
human  society,  and  overturn  the  results 
of  the  experience  of  ages.  It  will  not  be 
my  province  here  to  defend  the  memory 
of  the  deceased.  Incidentally,  of  course, 
his  character  arises  in  the  progress  of 
the  trial.  It  is  not  my  duty  to  defend  his 
memory.  He  is  in  his  grave.  Whatever 
his  faults  may  have  been,  whatever  errors 
he  may  have  committed,  whatever  wrongs 
he  has  perpetrated,  if  any — all  are  now 
expiated  in  the  forfeiture  of  his  life.  And 
we  are  here  to  see  whether  the  author  of 
his  death  is  to  expiate  her  errors  and  this 
offense  as  well. 

Now,  gen  demen,  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
prosecution  in  the  first  instance  to  prove 
to  you  the  circumstances  which  led  to  the 
offence  charged  in  this  indictment,  and 
which  constituted  that  offense.  It  was 
necessary  only  for  the  prosecution  to  prove 
the  circumstances  which  under  the  statute 
constituted  this  offense,  viz, :  that  the 


136 


man  was  killed,  that  it  was  done  with  a 
premeditated  design  to  kill  without  justi¬ 
fication.  The  law  presumes  that  where 
a  person  comes  to  his  death  by  a  dead¬ 
ly  weapon  in  the  hands  of  another, 
that  that  other  intended  the  conse¬ 
quences  of  the  use  of  that  weapon,  and 
when  the  killing  with  a  deadly  weapon 
was  proved  the|  offense  was  substantially 
made  out,  because  the  law  presumes  the 
balance.  It  was  then  competent,  as  has 
been  done  by  the  defense,  to  seek  to  show 
the  facts  upon  which  they  base  their  claim 
of  exoneration  for  this  act.  They  have 
come  before  you  and  exhausted  most  of 
the  week  in  showing  you  the  facts  upon 
which  they  rely.  The  defense  first  inter¬ 
posed  and  relied  upon  is  the  defense  of  in¬ 
sanity.  Well,  it  was  not  necessary  for  the 
counsel  for  the  defense  to  have  expended 
a  month  in  collecting  and  two  hours  in 
reading  to  you  extracts  from  various  medi¬ 
cal  works  proving  there  was  such  a  thing 
as  insanity.  It  was  not  necessary  for  him 
to  have  digested  from  nearly  all  the  medical 
works  within  reach,  to  prove  that  there 
was  such  a  kind  of  insanity  as  sworn  to 
here.  If  the  counsel  supposes  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  convince  anybody  of  that  at  this 
late  day,  he  has  indulged  in  an  enterprise 
which  has  not  had  its  parallel  since  the 
celebrated  exploit,  wherein  Don  Quixote 
and  Sancho  Panza  made  their  assault  on 
the  windmill.  I  don’t  think  any  intelli¬ 
gent  man  in  these  later  days  will  dispute 
the  proposition  of  law  he  lays  down  in  that 
respect.  But,  considering  that  insanity 
may  exist,  considering  there  is  such  a  dis¬ 
ease,  that  it  may  break  out  after  it  has 
continued  for  a  long  period  of  time  latent, 
being  brought  into  a  sudden  paroxysm  by 
a  sudden  shock,  then  the  threshold  of  the 
defense  is  only  reached,  the  counsel  sup¬ 
poses  that  when  he  has  performed  that  his 
case  is  established,  that  when  he  has  only 
entered  the  threshold  of  the  work,  that 
the  fortress  is  stormed. 

Now  but  a  few  words  will  dispose  of  that 
question.  It  is  conceded  by  everybody 
that  there  is  such  a  disease  as  insanity. 
It  is  not  denied  that  there  is  such  a  phase 


of  that  disease  as  has  been  testifieo  d 
the  witnesses  on  the  stand  and  as  hr » 
road  to  you  from  the  books,  which  shi 
more  par*  icularly  refer  to  in  a  few  me  a| 
The  ques  ion  here  is  ;  is  this  s  b 
case  ?  That  is  all.  That  fact  is  sougl  ol 
established  by  two  classes  of  testi  w 
The  first  is  from  the  testimony  of  ( er 
Well  now,  who  are  experts  ?  lie: 
doubt  most  of  you  gentlemen  und  .tu 
what  is  meant  by  experts.  In  bri  th 
is  a  mode  of  proof  that  has  crept  iut  un 
prudence,  growing  out  of  the  net  ah 
of  the  case.  Where  there  is  any  icci 
calling  leaning  to  special  info  aln| 
which  men  who  compose  juries,  si  ti 
people  at  large  are  not  supposed  tuef 
miliar  with,  it  is  held  proper  to  c  pc 
sons  who  are  thus  peculiarly  info  edi 
are  supposed  to  be  from  their  sitm 
and  calling  upon  such  particular  s  jeei 
Sometimes  experts  are  called  to  ,  Igu< 
handwriting,  sometimes  mechanic  so* 
times  physicians,  and  men  in  the  irits 
vocations  of  society.  Now  the  tn  phu 
of  that  is  this — and  in  no  instan'  th* 
am  aware  of,  except  in  these  p  icub 
cases  of  insanity,  has  that  rule  1  a  a 
parted  from — that  the  questions  eon 
fined  to  general  operations  elicit  g  gfl 
eral  information,  questions  gene  lj  » 
lating  to  the  particular  thing  t<  be  ■ 
quired  of,  and  it  is  left  to  the  ji  *1* 
and  exclusively  to  apply  those  ;eieq 
principles  and  opinions  to  the  fac  of  th 
case.  When  the  courts  in  any  stsu 
departed  from  that  rule  I  submit  t  y  ca* 
mitted  a  grave  error.  It  has  been  rough 
in  by  degrees,  owing  perhaps  tc  he  i| 
portance  of  these  trials, that  it  ha: omul 
be  admitted  sometimes  that  a  ,yacH 
who  has  sat  during  a  trial  aud  D  he«| 
the  evidence  is  called  as  an  expt  M 
press  an  opinion  as  to  whether  mot  i» 
facts  as  applied  to  these  particur 
establish  the  condition  of  in  sum'  in*l 
defendant.  But,  nevertheless,  iriill^ 
mains  a  question  for  the  j  lry  tdecMg 
and  I  submit  to  you  that  whate-r  v"> 
there  may  be  to  the  opinions  of  ‘ 
on  these  abstract  questions,  ha«  I 


137 


it  to  apply  the  question  to  the  partic- 

■  cts  in  the  case,  he  is  no  more  com- 
n  to  do  so,  after  having  stated  to  you 

3neral  principles,  than  you  are. 

;  he  as  competent,  because  we  all 
what  men  in  pursuit  of  a  single  idea, 
i  la  pursuit  of  a  single  principle  all 
r  lives  become  enthusiasts  on  that 
3 Im.  They  are  always  radical ;  they 
tj  carry  it  farther  than  the  common 
se  f  the  community  will  justify.  They 
ujiafe  judges  of  such  questions  when 
l  cne  to  apply  them  to  specific  acts, 
so  what  are  the  facts  in  this  case  ? 

Crrey,  an  eminent  gentleman  in  his 
ife  ion,  is  called  upon  the  stand,  and  I 
ai  to  you  it  was  a  most  extraordinary 
ibion,  and  it  only  proves  to  you  how 
mtligent  and  scientific  gentleman  may 
ailed  away  by  the  impulse  of  a  single 
,  id  by  his  sympathies  with  the  sub- 
t  •  that  idea.  It  is  true  that  Dr. 
rre  testifies  here,  on  this  stand,  that 
befeved  on  the  facts  in  the  case  that 
5  (fendant  was  insane.  He  testified 
tide  that,  independent  of  the  testimony 
theiccused,  throwing  her  testimony  all 
tl  other  testimony  in  the  case  satis- 
Ir i  she  was  insane.  He  went  further; 
sai  he  had  made  a  personal  examina- 
'  (j  the  defendant,  and  he  found  no 
ores  of  insanity  wheD  such  examina- 

■  ?  ere  made,  so  that  his  judgment 
n  influenced  by  that.  He  said  to 
tit  he  did  not  believe  there  was  any 
inanity  as  this  ;  that  a  person  could 
in  all  his  life  to  a  certain  period,  then 

me  or  a  few  moments,  and  then  sane 
neottely  and  always  afterwards,  and 
l  w  not  the  doctrine  he  had  substan- 
•1,  or  was  it  the  doctrine  of  the  books, 
mi  that  this  insanity  was  a  disease  of 
br:r,  which  is  the  organ  of  the  mind, 
th  ugh  which  this  mind  indicates  it- 
tc  he  surrounding  world.  Like  all 
er  jseases  which  grow  by  time,  like 
otlr  diseases  having  once  set  in,  it 
k  ti  e  to  remove  it ;  there  was  no  dif- 
nct  n  that  regard  between  a  disease  of 
hri  i  and  a  disease  of  any  other  por- 
1  of  he  system.  That  conceded,  gen¬ 


tlemen,  what  else  did  the  Doctor  say  ?  I 
asked  him — 

“Doctor — Can  you  state  a  single  fact  or  a 
single  act  of  the  defendant  prior  to  this  shoot¬ 
ing  which  indicated  that  she  was  insane?” 
“No.” 

Not  any  act  of  the  prisoner  which  indi¬ 
cated  she  was  insane  ! 

“Can  you  state  any  act  after  the  killing 
which  indicated  she  was  insane?”  “No,  ex¬ 
cept  that  she  delivered  herself  up.” 

Well,  Doctor,  do  not  persons  deliver  them¬ 
selves  up  for  offences  who  are  not  insane  ?” 
“Yes.” 

‘  Then  that  is  no  clear  evidence  of  insanity  ?” 
“No.” 

Now  there  was  no  act  of  lier’s  proving 
that  she  was  insane  before  the  homicide, 
and  none  that  showed  she  was  insane  after 
the  homicide.  Then,  of  course,  and  it 
don’t  require  any  doctor  to  tell  you  that — 
it  was  the  homicide  which  characterized 
the  act.  That  is  what  the  Doctor  said. 
Well,  what  is  the  next  question. 

“Doctor,  what  is  the  distinguishing  feature 
in  this  case  which  you  have  passed  upon  which 
characterizes  this  homicide,  so  that  you  can 
pronounce  it  an  insane  act?”  “None.” 

“  Is  there  any  difference  in  the  circumstances 
of  this  killing,  as  detailed  in  this  court,  which 
would  show  to  you  that  this  was  the  act  of  an 
insane  person  rather  than  the  act  of  a  sane  one 
under  the  heat  of  passion,  as  the  law  designates 
it?”  “None.” 

Well,  then,  gentlemen,  where  are  we  ? 
How  did  the  Doctor  know  ?  How  could 
the  Doctor  say  to  you,  how  can  you  say, 
that  this  was  an  insane  act,  under  such 
testimony  as  that  ?  There  is  nothing  be¬ 
fore  in  the  aot  of  the  party,  there  is  noth¬ 
ing  afterwards  in  the  act  of  the  party,  in 
fact,  in  the  act  itself,  which  indicates  in¬ 
sanity  ;  and  yet  the  Doctor  says  to  you, 
in  his  zeal  in  this  one  idea,  which  has  ab¬ 
sorbed  his  u'hole  mind,  and  to  which  he 
has  devoted  his  whole  thoughts — “  There’s 
no  doubt  she  was  insane.”  Well,  to  put  it 
beyond  all  question,  when  all  the  testimony 
was  in — 

“  Doctor — Do  you  think  the  Prosecution 
could  produce  any  proof,  after  this  transaction, 
to  convince  you  that  this  woman  was  not  in¬ 
sane  ?”  “None.” 

“  Can  you  conceive  of  any  evidence  that 
could  be  adduced,  after  the  act,  to  convince 
you  she  was  not  insane?”  “  No.” 

Well,  now,  gentlemen,  is  it  possible  ; 
is  it  possible  that  an  intelligent  jury  of 


138 


citizens  of  common  sense,  are  to  be  con¬ 
trolled  by  such  testimony  as  this  ?  Is  it 
possible  ?  But,  giving  the  Doctor  the 
benefit  of  his  theories,  he  says  there  are 
certain  indications  showing  a  person  to  be 
a  fit  subject  for  insanity.  Well,  is  every 
person  that  possesses  those  indications 
which  the  Doctor  specifies — a  nervous 
temperament,  etc.,  is  every  person  to  be 
pronounced  insane  in  this  community  on 
that  ground  ?  Did  it  occur  to  you  before 
these  physicians  were  placed  on  the  stand 
that  there  was  any  evidence  in  this  case, 
outside  of  the  testimony  of  the  prisoner, 
which  tended  to  show  she  was  insane  ? 
Think  of  it.  Did  that  idea  even  suggest 
itself  to  your  minds,  that  there  was  any 
testimony,  outside  of  her  declarations, 
that  she  was  insane  ?  And  now  the  Doctor 
tells  you  there  was  no  doubt  whatever  of 
her  insanity,  independent  of  her  own  tes¬ 
timony.  I  say  nothing  to  you  of  the  tes¬ 
timony  of  Dr.  Byrne,  because  it  is  obvious 
to  you  that  Dr.  Correy  having  testified  in 
this  matter,  Dr.  Byrne  was  called  upon  to 
stand  as  a  tender  to  Dr.  Correy,  having 
crammed  himself  before  he  came  here  for 
the  purposes  of  this  trial,  as  he  tells  you, 
and  Dr.  Byrne  was  intended  to  be,  as  he 
was,  a  mere  echo  to  Dr.  Correy.  If  Dr. 
Correy  was  right,  Dr.  Byrne  was  right  ;  if 
Dr.  Correy  was  wrong,  Dr.  Byrne  was 
wrong.  But  let  me  suggest  to  you  another 
idea  with  reference  to  this  professional 
testimony.  Suppose  this  had  been  a  trial 
in  a  civil  action  ;  suppose  it  was  an  action 
involving  only  a  few  dollars,  based  on  a 
contract,  if  you  please,  made  between  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  and  somebody  else ; 
and  suppose  to  avoid  that  contract  these 
exact  facts,  which  were  testified  to  in  this 
case,  exclusive  of  the  facts  connected  with 
the  homicide,  were  established,  and  it  was 
sought  to  be  claimed  before  you  that  the 
contract  was  void  because  the  prisoner  was 
insane,  how  long  would  you  sit  in  your 
jury  box  to  listen  to  that  defense  ?  J ust 
as  long  as  they  were  making  it.  Would 
you  ever  leave  the  box  to  hold  that  that 
doctrine  was  good  ?  Apply  this  principle 
to  every-day  life.  Because,  a  person  pos¬ 


sessing  characteristics  which  may  i 
her  the  subject  of  insanity,  it  would]  < 
to  transact  business  with  her  ;  becai , 
you  do,  some  “expert”  doctor  may  i 
on  the  stand,  and  tell  you  there  w  i 
evidence  of  insanity  in  making  th<  o 
tract,  and  no  insane  act  before  or  ft 
making  it,  but  the  party  possessed  c  s 
teristics  making  her  a  fit  subject  i 
sanity,  and  therefore  she  was  i  ji 
When  you  go  to  your  business  pk  « 
Monday  look  out  for  the  man  yoile 
with.  See  to  it.  Take  a  doctor  wit  <x 
and  the  first  man  you  do  busines  ril 
let  him  be  examined,  and  see  if  hn 
sesses  any  of  those  peculiar  chara-ri 
tics  which  will  enable  him  to  avo  b 
contract.  If  you  go  to  buy  cotto  xl 
your  expert  doctor  along,  and  haihii 
examine  the  man  who  offers  it  fo  al 
See  whether  he  is  nervous ;  see  w  thi 
he  has  lost  his  wife  or  some  of  his  i  lil; 
or  is  under  any  great  grief  or  oppn  ioi 
see  w  hether  or  not  he  indicates  tlia  to 
grief  by  expressions  ;  have  him  exa  ne< 
and  see  whether  there  may  not  b<  -on 
disease  in  him,  because  it  is  not  o  dii 
ease  alone  which  tends  to  iusanit  -u 
that  peculiar  to  women  ;  and  whe  thr 
examination  is  made  then  make  ujyos 
minds  from  this  expert  whether  it  «| 
to  make  this  contract.  This  is  the  by  i 
test  these  questions  ;  carry  thei  mt 
every-day  life.  How  happens  it  tl  th; 
peculiar  insanity  occurs  only  in  the  « « 
homicide  ?  Howr  happens  it  that  th-ourl 
are  full  of  these  cases,  and  no  ties 
Gentlemen,  is  this  prisoner  the  oi'  pi 
son  in  this  city  or  in  the  city  of  Ne  Yod 
adjoining,  wrho  is  walking  at  large  nth 
streets  and  transacting  business,  !«<■* 
ing  these  peculiar  characteristicsfbifl 
lead  to  insanity  ? 

Gentlemen,  that  defense,  so  far  S  4i 
testimony  is  concerned,  is  a  shansmb 
farce.  Concede,  as  I  have,  the  pi  apk 
upon  which  such  a  defense  may  btoual 
ed;  concede,  as  I  have,  all  that  is  aim» 
for  the  theory  in  this  case,  it  is  a  rw  b 
say  that  this  testimony  of  this  door  hi 
any  bearing  upon  the  facts  in  t  **• 


139 


fc  gentlemen,  I  am  not  alone  in  my 
on  as  to  this.  It  has  been  found  by 
•hence  in  courts  that  this  testimony  is 
3:y  and  absolutely  unsafe.  Did  you 
near  of  a  case  among  the  numerous 
e;  which  have  occurred  lately,  where 
ajty  is  set  up,  some  successful  and 
icmsuccessful,  that  there  were  not  a 
rof  witnesses  on  each  side,  testifying 
hqual  confidence,  and  men  eminent  in 
ibrofession,  standing  high  in  the  med- 
1  )i'kl,  testifying  to  the  insanity  of  the 
u  d,  and  men  equally  high  testifying 
tl)  sanity.  There  are  occasionally 
es  where  there  is  no  question ;  but 
ei  there  has  been  any  such  it  has  al- 
vsjeen  the  case.  An  eminent  writer  in 
tw  ook  which  I  have  before  me,  on  this 
>j«  indulges  in  these  remarks  : 

Ve  ave  already  adverted  several  times  to  the 
wi;  disfavor  with  which  expert  testimony 
oo.dupon  by  those  who  are  best  entitled  to 
Lge  f  its  value.  It  would  not  be  difficult  to 
iti)y  instances  of  a  similar  tenor.  Though 
vy  ranch  of  science  has  been  advanced  with 
d  rapid  strides,  it  is  not,  perhaps,  too 
ch;>  say  that  from  the  time  of  Lord  Mani- 
'  a  1  Folkes  vs.  Chadd,  to  the  present  tune, 
■re  j’s  been  a  steady  decrease  in  the  credit  to 
awjded  to  the  testimony  of  scientific  wit¬ 
hes  We  have  before  quoted  the  very  forci- 
re  irks  with  which  the  Scotch  judge  dis- 
sselsuch  evidence.  Similar  remarks  have 
uiom  the  judges  and  law  writers  in  this 
at:  and  in  England.  Lord  Denman,  (one 
thmost  eminent  judges  of  England),  says: 
1  TLf  be  that  medical  men  may  be  more  in 
>  liyit  of  observing  cases  of  this  kind  than 
i'  rsons,  and  there  may  be  cases  in  which 
ilic;  testimony  may  be  essential,  but  I  can- 
a8je  with  the  notion  that  moral  insanity 
■  b  better  judged  of  by  medical  men  than 
vi'S:  Mr.  Justice  Grier  (one  of  the  most 
vie,  judges  of  the  United  {States  Supreme 
urtjsays :  “Experience  has  shown  that 
I'osi  opinions  of  persons  claiming  to  be  ex- 
'ts  iy  be  obtained  to  any  amount;  and  it 
ppens  that  not  only  days,  but  even 
vks,  re  consumed  in  cross-examinations  to 
1  th  ikill  or  knowledge  of  the  witnesses  and 
’  cc|ectness  of  their  opinions,  wasting  the 
ie  o  he  court  and  wearying  its  patience,  and 
pie  ig  instead  ot  elucidating  the  questions 
oivi;  in  the  issue.”  Chief  Justice  Chap- 
:n\  '  Massachusetts,  said:  “I  think  the 
lnioi  of  experts  are  not  so  highly  regarded 
wa|  formerly,  for  while  they  often  afford 
at  a  m  deteimining  facts,  it  often  happens 
t  ex  rts  may  be  found  to  testify  to  anything, 
"ev<  absurd.  ’  In  the  Tracy  Peerage  case, 
ra  tnpbell  said  :  “  I  do  not  mean  to  throw 
lel  itmn  on  Sir  Frederick  Madden.  I  dare 


say  he  is  a  very  respectable  gentleman,  and  did 
not  mean  to  certify  to  anything  untrue  ;  but 
really  this  confirms  the  opinion  I  have  already 
entertained  that  hardly  any  weight  is  to  be 
given  to  the  evidence  of  what  is  called  scientific 
witnesses.  They  come  with  a  bias  on  their 
minds  to  support  the  cause  in  which  they  are 
embarked  ;  and  it  appears  to  me  that  Sir  Fred¬ 
erick  Madden,  if  he  had  not  been  a  witness  in 
a  cause,  and  he  had  been  asked  on  a  different 
occasion  what  he  thought  of  his  handwriting, 
would  have  given  a  totally  different  answer.” 
Judge  McLean  (of  the  U.  S.  Supreme  Court) 
bears  witness  to  the  remarkable  conflict  that  is 
generally  displayed  in  the  opinions  of  scientific 
witnesses.  The  opinions  of  experts  who  have 
been  examined  are  in  conflict,  and,  so  far  as  my 
experience  goes,  this  has  been  uniformly  the 
case  where  experts  have  been  examined.  In 
that  case  eight  doctors  deposed  for  the  plaintiff 
and  eleven  for  the  defendant.  Other  instances 
might  be  adduced.  Thus,  in  the  famous  Free¬ 
man  trial,  nine  physicians  and  experts  in  insan¬ 
ity  deposed  one  way,  and  seven  quite  as  posi¬ 
tively  the  other.  In  the  Andrews  trial,  Dr. 
Jarvis  swore  positively  to  his  belief  that  the 
prisoner  was  afflicted  at  the  time  of  the  killing 
with  momentary  insanity,  maniacal  paroxysm, 
or  transitory  mania,  while  Dr.  Choate  swore  as 
distinctly  the  other  way,  on  the  ground  there 
was  no  such  disease  known  to  science.  In  the 
Huntington  trial  the  doctors  disagreed  ;  and  in 
The  People  vs.  Lake  there  were  experts  on  both 
sides.  See  also  the  Schoepp  murder  trial,  lately 
held  in  Pennsylvania,  and  the  opinions  con¬ 
tained  in  a  pamphlet  of  the  different  medical 
societies  as  to  the  expert  testimony  on  the 
strength  of  which  the  prisoner  was  convicted. 
Indeed,  upon  this  point  the  authorities  are 
agreed.  Very  little  weight  is  to  be  attached  to 
expert  testimony,  often  none  at  all,  and  very 
often  it  is  worse  than  useless  for  the  court  to 
listen  to  it. 

Let  me  add  to  this  the  late  case  tried  in 
Baltimore,  known  as  the  “Wharton  trial,” 
There  was  no  question  of  opinion  except 
upon  abstract  chemical  science,  the  result 
of  chemical  analysis,  concerning  which 
there  ought  to  be  no  difference,  it  was  a 
question  whether,  upon  a  post  mortem  ex¬ 
amination  of  the  body,  poison  was  found 
therein.  Ten  eminent  physicians  and  ex¬ 
perts  testified  there  was  a  trace  of  poison 
in  the  body,  and  ten  eminent  physicians 
and  experts  testified  there  was  plenty  of 
poison  there.  I  will  read  further  from  the 
same  work  : 

Experience  has  shown  that  matter  of  opinion, 
even  on  the  most  rigidly  scientific  subjects,  is 
so  chameleon-like,  if  we  may  so  speak,  in  its 
character,  that  it  is  exceedingly  likely  to  take  its 
color,  in  the  matter  of  legal  evidence,  from  that 
of  the  side  that  has  made  the  first  overtures. 
The  remarkable  fact  relating  to  this  matter  is 


140 


that  the  opinions  of  honest  and  conscientious 
men  are  often  thus  swayed  and  affected. 

Gentlemen,  the  prosecution  has  pro¬ 
duced  no  expert  testimony  in  this  case. 
From  what  I  have  read  to  you,  you  can  see 
how  easy  it  would  have  been  to  produce  a 
conflict  of  testimony  upon  the  main  ques¬ 
tion  raised  here.  We  did  not  introduce  it, 
first  and  last,  because  we  had  no  idea  of 
this  defense— that  the  defense  of  insanity 
was  to  be  relied  upon.  True,  the  counsel 
said  to  you,  with  his  usual  fairness,  that 
inasmuch  as  we  read  the  definition  of  mur¬ 
der  to  you  which  contains  the  clause  in  it 
that  there  should  be  a  sound  mind,  and 
therefore  we  knew  the  defense  was  to  be 
set  up.  Well,  we  commented  likewise 
upon  the  clause  that  killing  was  necessary 
to  constitute  murder,  but  it  never  entered 
our  minds  that  the  defense  would  set  up 
that  Mr.  Watson  was  not  killed.  Second¬ 
ly,  and  more,  we  did  not  introduce  this 
testimony,  because  of  the  character  of  it, 
to  which  I  have  just  called  your  attention. 
But,  gentlemen,  it  all  resolves  itself  into 
this  question  :  you  are  the  judges  of  this 
testimony,  and  you  are  the  judges  on  all 
the  testimony  here.  Just  so  far  as  these 
experts  give  you  sound  and  substantial 
reasons  for  the  belief  in  them,  just  so  far 
it  will  recommend  itself  to  your  judgment; 
and  I  leave  it  to  you  to  say  whether  the 
testimony  given  by  these  physicians,  to 
which  I  have  referred,  and  upon  which 
they  base  their  opinions,  is  such  that  re¬ 
commends  itself  to  your  sound  belief. 
Now,  the  other  ground  on  which  it  is 
claimed  that  this  prisoner  is  insane  is  the 
fact  that  she  was  a  subject  of  insanity,  that 
there  were  certain  indications,  which  the 
counsel  specified,  prior  to  the  time  of  this 
killing,  which  would  lead  your  minds,  and 
ought  to  lead  your  minds,  to  that  conclu¬ 
sion  ;  and  you  will  pardon  me  if  I  refer  to 
that  testimony  which  is  really  all  the  legit- 
mate  testimony  for  you  to  consider  ia  this 
case.  The  first  point  that  they  suggest  to 
you  is  an  hereditary  predisposition  in  the 
family,  and  in  proof  of  that  they  have  in¬ 
troduced  certain  evidence,  tending  to  show 
that  the  grandfather  of  this  prisoner  was 


insane.  I  will  not  occupy  your  timi 
commenting  on  that  question.  I  will  ] 
its  character  and  credibility  to  you. 
this  is  the  first  step,  and  it  is  an  impo: 
step,  because  the  authorities  say 
where  this  predisposition  finds  its  out! 
that  is  the  first  thing  that  should  be  lo 
for.  But  the  authorities  say  that  wit 
this  predisposition  this  particular  kii 
insanity  don’t  often  occur.  Now,  the 
of  the  prisoner  should  indicate  it. 
tell  you  that  at  fifteen  years  of  age 
young  creature  was  seduced  by  the 
of  a  mau — a  man  forty  odd  years  of  i 
by  his  wiles,  by  the  influence  of  his  i 
tion,  by  something,  I  know  not  u 
seduced  this  young  girl,  and  that  tha  i 
the  first  act  that  led  to  this  insanity 
that  to  be  received  as  a  fact  in  this  i < 
If  you  believe  that  these  two  peopl  1 
live  together  at  some  time  adulteroir- 
concede,  if  you  please,  that  at  the  a  ' 
nearly  sixteen  years  the  intimacy  * 
menced,  does  that  prove  that  the  wilt  i 
inclinations  of  this  man  seduced  this }  u 
girl  ?  because  on  that  circumstanc  tl 
defense  in  this  case  wholly  stands.  T  in 
it  in  any  aspect  you  please,  insanit  ( 
this  other  defense,  which  I  shall  coi  I 
presently,  it  is  based  on  the  idea  th:  tl 
man  is  alone  at  fault,  and  she  the  iui  ei 
victim,  and  to  him  alone  is  the  pi  is! 
ment.  Let  us  take  a  common-sense  ei 
Is  there  a  particle  of  testimony  i  lb 
case  except  her  own  ?  She  was  put  po; 
the  stand  and  examined  on  that  si  eel 
She  says  that  at  something  upwards  fil 
teen  years  of  age  she  went  to  wo  fo 
this  man  ;  that  she  was  employed  her 
about  six  months  when  she  was  se>oed 
What  occurred  during  those  six  mon$m 
human  tongue  can  tell.  The  only  tigii* 
which  could  tell  it,  from  the  nature  th 
case,  was  her’s.  She  alone  cou  W] 
what  arts  were  resorted  to  and  what  aid 
ishments  were  held  out,  what  induwenti 
were  extended  to  her  to  yield  her  vi  is  h 
this  man.  He  cannot  tell  you.  Heesii 
the  cold,  silent  grave.  He  cannot 
you,  on  his  part,  for  his  lips  are  si  it  u 
death,  whether  the  act  was  his  or  h  s< <* 


141 


icier  it  was,  as  is  general  in  these  cases, 
n  :ual  act. 

B;  conceding  even  that  this  is  true, 
ithis  girl  was  seduced  by  this  man,  is 
toe  claimed  as  a  proposition  of  law  or 
hcnan  experience,  or  is  it  to  be  accept- 
a  fact  without  proof  that  when  a  girl 
if  sixteen  years  of  age  loses  her  virtue 
sii  a  fact  from  which  counsel  can  argue 
,a  ty  ?  Often  and  often  are  girls  mar- 
d  it  that  age.  I  appeal  to  your  own 
sedation  ;  I  appeal  to  the  information 
1  lave  obtained  around  in  the  social 
cl  how  many  young  girls  to-day  are  in 
'  ouses  of  prostitution  in  New  York, 
1  ounger  than  was  this  girl.  How 
nyoung  girls  to-day  under  sixteen  are 
icng  their  wares  about  the  stores  and 
nfthe  offices  in  New  York,  who  are  as 
d  to  dispose  of  their  persons  as  they 
c  their  wares.  Is  it  an  accepted  fact 
t  ccause  a  girl  is  sixteen  or  thereabout 
,t  le  is  not  guitly  in  any  sense  if  she 
csier  virtue  ?  Take  this  young  girl  in 
thlar.  She  commences  work  at  eight 
rof  age.  She  continues  continuously 
fa  ories  up  to  the  time  of  this  occur- 
oi  Seven  or  eight  years  she  mingles 
nicously  with  women  and  girls  older 
herself.  She  is  described  as  a  girl  of 
isil  precocity  and  intelligence,  by  their 
a  finesses — the  smartest  girl,  some  of 
jaployers  say,  they  ever  saw,  extra 
fffjent ;  and  although  the  counsel  tried 
iit  it  by  confining  it  to  mere  work, 
r messes  would  not  understand  it  in 
t  ay,  but  would  have  it  in  general  in- 
igice.  Now  the  difference  between  a 
in  girl  in  your  parlor  and  mine  at  fif- 
n ;  sixteen  years  of  age,  who  is  kept 
le  the  paternal  roof,  with  father  and 
th  •  watching  over  her,  who  has  scarce- 
ni  gled  in  society,  knows  but  little  of 
vrld,  and  the  girl  who  has  worked  in 
ul  c  factory  among  all  kinds  of  people 
n  ghtto  fifteen  years  of  age,  in  knowl- 
te,  f  human  nature  and  precocity  is  the 
ie  3  is  the  difference  in  the  plant  which 
w  in  the  shade,  not  exposed  to  the 
igl'ating  rays  of  the  sun  and  to  the  air, 

1  tit  plant  which  has  grown  out  in  the 


sun  and  is  used  to  buffeting  the  wind  and 
storm.  Is  it  to  be  assumed  that  this  man 
who  lies  in  his  grave  is  this  libertine  des- 
scribed  to  you  so  pathetically  and  grandly 
by  counsel  on  the  other  side  ?  But  assum¬ 
ing  this  without  proof,  what  is  the  fact  ? 
This  young  girl  and  this  man  enter  into 
that  relation.  To  further  illustrate  the 
“wiles”  of  this  man,  I  omitted  to  state 
another  branch  of  evidence.  The  wit¬ 
nesses  were  made  to  state  that  he  brought 
confectionery  and  various  things  which 
would  please  young  girls  in  this  factory, 
and  it  was  to  be  inferred  from  that  that 
this  man  was  that  libertine.  Well,  only 
one  question  disposed  of  all  of  that. 

Q.  How  often  were  these  things  brought? 
A.  About  once  a  week  or  two.  Q.  A  lunch  or 
refreshment  of  which  every  one  in  the  factory 
partook,  male  and  female  ?  A.  Certainly. 

The  counsel  could  not  avoid  conceding 
that  if  from  an  innocent  motive  it  afforded 
no  ground  for  censure.  Is  there  any  evi¬ 
dence  before  you  showing  that  it  was  not 
an  innocent  motive  ?  Is  there  anything 
criminal  in  that  ?  Is  there  anything  indi¬ 
cating  the  libertine  in  it  ?  But  a  little 
more — the  party  has  his  likeness  taken  ! 
The  counsel  gave  me  an  admonition  during 
his  summing  up  that  I  was  not  good 
at  stage  effects.  He  is  correct.  I  concede 
it,  and  therefore  I  never  have  attempted 
them.  But  I  cannot  say  that  of  him.  He 
has  had  the  experience  of  nine  years. 
No  man  I  ever  knew  can  excel  him  in  that. 
When  he  brought  in  the  photograph  of 
those  two  little  girls  it  was  a  part  of  that 
stage  effect  to  which  he  referred,  and  it 
ended  in  the  effect  that  this  man  sent  it 
home  three  days  after  it  was  taken.  Under 
what  circumstances  it  was  taken,  whether 
at  the  solicitation  of  the  two  girls,  he 
being  there  in  the  factory  with  them, 
or  at  whose  instance,  it  does  not  appear. 
Nothing  appears  in  proof  to  show  that  it 
was  taken  from  a  wrong  motive.  The  next 
fact  relied  on  to  establish  this  proposition 
is  that  he  was  her  employer,  and  had 
special  control  over  her  in  that  way.  Mr. 
Bachman  carried  on  that  business.  Mr. 
Watson  had  an  interest  in  it.  Mr.  Watson 
worked  by  the  day  continually  in  it.  He 


142 


was  at  work  there  at  the  time  of  the  homi¬ 
cide,  and  the  witnesses  testify  that  he  took 
charge  as  foreman  of  the  men,  as  this  de¬ 
fendant  took  charge  of  the  women.  They 
were,  so  far  as  that  factory  was  concerned, 
on  an  equality.  Mr.  Bachman  discharged 
her  wrhen  she  was  to  be  discharged,  and 
Mr.  Bachman  employed  her  when  she  was 
to  be  employed.  His  name  was  the  only 
one  up  in  the  business,  although  Watson 
was  regularly  employed,  and  had  some 
interest  in  the  business. 

Well,  the  next  fact  relied  upon  to  prove 
insanity  is  a  change  of  temperament,  a 
change  of  habit,  a  change  in  dress.  Why, 
gentlemen,  she  did  not  dress  quite  as  neat¬ 
ly  as  she  had  done  ;  she  got  more  careless 
in  her  whole  demeanor,  and  latterly  she 
got  thinner.  She  formerly  weighed  one 
hundred  and  twenty-five  pounds.  Now  she 
is  down  to  less  than  one  hundred.  Is  it 
anything  strange  that  a  girl  from  the  age 
of  fifteen  or  sixteen  years,  for  the  next 
two  or  three  years  gets  thinner?  It  some¬ 
times  happens  without  disease.  It  often 
happens  as  they  grow  up  they  are  thinner. 
But  this  is  not  all:  she  had  a  disease 
peculiar  to  women  ;  the  counsel  asserts 
caused  by  this  man,  caused  by  this  liber¬ 
tine.  Where  is  the  evidence  of  that? 
They  don’t  tell  us  what  that  disease  was 
particularly,  perhaps  from  motives  of  deli¬ 
cacy.  But  we  can  surmise  what  it  was. 
But  if  your  surmise  and  mine  is  the  same, 
is  there  anything  in  the  fact  that  these 
people  were  living  together  in  that  way 
that  would  produce  this  disease.  Does  not 
that  disease  exist  in  the  community  among 
the  virtuous?  I  appeal  to  your  own  gen¬ 
eral  information  whether  it  is  not  com¬ 
mon  amongst  women.  Shall  it  be  said  that 
because  a  woman  who  has  a  husband  for 
ten  months  and  then  goes  to  Washington 
to  be  treated  for  this  disease  peculiar  to 
the  female  sex,  that  that  man  with  whom 
she  was  living  in  this  way  other  than  her 
husband  caused  that  disease?  Is  that  the 
way  cases  of  this  kind  are  to  be  tried,  and 
is  it  an  assumption  that  people  are  insane 
upon  this  state  of  facts?  This  disease, 
distressing  and  wearing  as  it  is,  no  doubt, 


among  thousands  of  women  in  oux* 
munity,  is  not  caused  by  libert  a 
Well,  that  is  disposed  of.  The  next  til 
4  4  great  misfortune  and  grief.  ”  Wha  i» 
misfortune  and  grief;  and  w'hat  a  tb 
evidences  of  misfortune  and  grief?  ig 
may  be  grief;  there  may  be  misfc  u; 
but  where  are  the  evidences  of  grief  Li 
us  see.  The  first  evidence  is  \vh:  tin 
“young  girl  ”  said  while  at  Washing  a.- 

“I  feel  as  if  there  was  a  great  curse  b  ^ 
over  me.  ” 

Gentlemen,  there  was  no  great  us 
4  4  hanging  over”  her.  It  was  upo  be 
What  was  it?  When  amid  the  tli  der 
of  Sinai  it  was  handed  down  frorGe 
Almighty,  “Thou  shalt  not  commiini 
tery,”  those  who  committed  it  sulcta 
themselves  to  that  curse.  Could  3  4 
otherwise,  when  she  walked  abroad  nde 
that  injunction  from  the  Almighty  tii| 
upon  her,  ten  months  with  a  husbar  ani 
at  the  same  time  cohabiting  with  thi;  the 
man — could  she  do  otherwise,  if  she  id; 
conscience  within  her,  than  to  say,  •  her 
is  a  great  curse”  not  over,  but  ipoi 
me?”  When  she  walked  out  into  to 
could  she  expect  the  flowex-s  won!  loci 
so  bright  or  the  grass  as  green,  or  t  :th 
songs  of  the  birds  would  strike  as 
upon  her  ear  with  this  great  momgiui 
resting  upon  her?  There  was  a  cons  ‘not 
This  was  the  first  proof  we  have  thi 
case  of  its  sway.  But  it  was  not  inpiu 
It  is  not  necessaiy  to  resort  to  the  issn 
theory  to  explain  the  effect  of  conshli« 
Now  what  next?  She  made  a  dec!  itia 
at  the  stove,  on  the  morning  of  the oni 
cide.  She  said  4  ‘she  wished  she  was  ‘«d.' 
In  addition  to  the  crime  I  have  alre  yre 
ferred  to,  there  was  another  cause  if  h< 
making  that  remai'k.  She  was  n(  oni] 
resting  under  the  incubus  of  crim  b( 
she  was  contemplating  another,  andiiha 
very  bosom  was  the  pistol  with  whii  six 
intended  to  perform  the  act.  44  B  ter, 
as  the  Counsel  said,  “  might  she  filled 
than  to  have  canned  out  that  crime.:  i 

It  is  a  little  surprising  that  all  th  ?  ii* 
dications  of  insanity  relied  upon,  exc  'tin( 
this  one  which  I  mentioned,  occur  d  <* 


143 


orning  of  the  homicide.  It  is  a  lit- 
s  -prising  that  they  all  occurred  after 
■  ]  stol  came  out  of  that  drawer  and  was 
;cL  in  her  bosom,  but  not  so  surprising 
t]:  contemplation  of  the  act  she  was 
tat  time  conceiving.  She  looked 
vi  in  the  eye;”  she  looked  “pale;” 
t  ;  is  a  sing-ular  comment  upon  the 
uof  the  doctor’s  testimony.  He  says 
sva  hardly  possible  that  wildness  of  the 
■ :  d  that  paleness  of  the  face  could  pre- 
iei  contemplated  murder.  That  may 
yi.r  experience.  If  it  is.  you  will  agree 
h  die  doctor  in  that  regard.  Now  is 
tat  all?  It  is  true,  ingenious  theories 
y  >e  suggested;  it  is  true,  declamation 
y  e  had  by  the  hour  upon  the  rela- 
naf  these  parties.  But  where  are  the 
is  I  shall  have  occasion  when  we  come 
ir  ther  branch  of  this  subject  to  again 
•n  that.  But,  gentlemen,  I  submit  to 
;  men  of  plain  common  sense  whether 
s  efense  of  insanity  in  any  aspect, 
etjer  made  from  the  testimony  of  ex- 
rtpr  from  any  testimony,  is  not  a 
in:  But,  gentlemen,  that  is  not  the 
1  i  fense  in  this  case.  This  defense  is 
prised  for  the  purpose  of  ringing  the 
tnjis  on  what  is  claimed  to  be  the 
on;  of  this  young  girl  on  the  part  of 
s  fin.  Now  I  am  not  prepared  to  say 
it  ere  are  not  cases  where  a  jury  are 
stifled  in  their  own  consciences  in 
paling  from  the  strict  letter  of  the  law 
1  riding  a  person  harmless  for  an 
n  which  comes  strictly  within  the 
tu  .  It  may  be  a  question  of  grave 
asi  nation,  as  I  have  suggested  once 
roi  during  the  trial  of  this  case,  whether 
th;e  cases  where  the  moral  sense  of 
n  appealed  to,  in  the  judicial  judg- 
mt»f  the  juror,  it  would  not  be  better 
le  e  it  to  the  tribunal  where  the  law 
ir  e  it  and  to  say  that  the  letter  of  the 
'  1:  the  benefit  of  society  should  be 
idi  ted,  and  that  the  Executive  may 
ter  se.  I  do  not  make  that  remark 
rm  he  motive  which  has  been  assigned 
I  made  that  remark  with  the  same 
ion  that  I  make  now.  If  you  are 
tisi  d  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  this 


m< 

gg' 


crime  was  committed  would  it  not  be  bet¬ 
ter  to  find  the  prisoner  guilty  and  sustain 
the  law  for  the  benefit  of  society,  and,  in¬ 
asmuch  as  human  laws  cannot  be  perfect, 
inasmuch  as  they  cannot  cover  every  case 
that  might  arise, — God  Almighty  alone  can 
make  laws  to  cover  all  cases — depend  upon 
the  interposition  of  the  Executive  to  whom 
the  law  has  wisely  given  the  power  of  re¬ 
prieve,  pardon  or  commutation?  I  do  not 
mean  to  say — and  I  hope  I  may  not  while 
I  live  to  occupy  the  position  I  now  hold 
say  that  if  there  is  in  the  minds  of  the 
jury  any  doubt  known  to  the  law  they  should 
not  give  the  prisoner  the  benefit  of  it.  Ev¬ 
ery  prisoner  is  entitled  to  that.  But  the 
question  is  whether,  in  a  clear  case,  where 
that  reasonable  doubt  of  the  prisoner’s  guilt 
does  not]  exist,  and  where  nevertheless  the 
punishment  of  guilt  would  shock  the  moral 
sense  of  the  jury  and  the  community, 
would  it  not  be  better  to  leave  it  where  the 
law  has  placed  it.  But,  gentlemen,  I  think 
I  will  show  you  this  is  not  such  a  case. 
The  true  foundation  of  punishment  is  be¬ 
cause  it  is  right.  The  theory  of  the  law 
is  that  a  man  should  be  punished  because 
it  is  right,  not  because  of  any  particular 
good  to  community,  although  that  is  a 
consequence  which  is  supposed  to  follow 
punishment.  But  the  principle  that  lies 
down  deep  at  the  bottom  of  human  pun¬ 
ishment  is  because  it  is  right.  It  is  the 
same  principle  that  the  Divine  Ruler  acts 
upon  in  punishing  His  subjects  ;  but  as 
human  laws  cannot  be  made  to  nicely  dis¬ 
criminate  and  to  do  exact  and  divine  jus¬ 
tice,  there  is  this  humane  provision  to 
which  I  have  referred.  It  has  happened 
in  the  jurisprudence  of  this  country,  as  in 
other  intelligent  communities,  that  cases 
have  occurred  where  it  would  shock  the 
moral  sense  of  the  jury  and  of  the  com¬ 
munity  to  execute  a  man,  although  the 
man  had  strictly  placed  himself  within  the 
letter  of  the  law.  Many  such  cases  have 
been  read  to  you  through  the  progress  of 
this  trial.  It  has  been  resorted  to  largely, 
resorted  to  by  Courts,  by  counsel,  and  by 
juries,  that  under  cover  of  the  plea  of  in¬ 
sanity  that  moral  sense  should  speak  out 


144 


in  a  verdict  of  acquittal.  Now  I  recognize 
the  fact  and  I  cannot  shut  my  eyes,  if  I 
would,  to  the  fact.  It  is  not  to  be  denied 
that  these  cases  have  occurred;  and  with 
the  limitations  or  qualifications  which  I 
have  already  expressed  to  you.  I  don’t 
deny  their  propriety.  Is  this  such  a  ca  e? 
I  shall  refer,  after  the  lengthy  argument 
that  has  been  made  to  you  in  which  many 
of  these  cases  have  been  cited,  ouly  to  two 
or  three  of  them,  simply  to  illustrate  the 
principle  for  which  I  contend.  There  are 
cases,  conspicuous  and  prominent,  of 
which  the  case  of  Sickles  may  perhaps  be 
taken  as  the  leading  one,  one  which  per¬ 
haps  the  moral  sense  of  the  community 
approved;  and  such  a  case  as  that  of  Cole. 
But  I  did  not  say,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
as  I  was  represented  to  have  said,  when  I 
cited  this  case,  that  the  verdict  was  an  out¬ 
rage  on  public  justice.  I  said  the  charge 
of  the  Court  when  that  jury  came  in,  as  to 
the  principles  of  law,  on  the  excitement 
of  the  moment,  was  an  outrage  on  the 
principles  of  legal  justice,  but  not  the  ver¬ 
dict  of  the  jury;  and  I  say  now  it  was  the 
only  instance  on  record,  so  far  as  I  can 
discover,  where  that  doctrine  was  held  by 
the  Courts  as  to  the  preponderance  of  proof 
on  the  question  of  insanity. 

But  what  principle  lies  at  the  bottom  of 
these  cases  ?  A  wronged  husband  !  In  the 
one  case,  a  man  had  confided  to  his  friend, 
who  had  visited  .this  home  as  a  friend,  the 
cherished  wife  of  his  bosom ;  and  that 
man,  under  the  guise  of  friendship  and  the 
shield  of  hospitality,  stole  into  that  home 
and  debauched  her  under  circumstances  of 
peculiar  atrocity.  In  the  other  case,  a 
man  was  at  the  front  fighting  the  battles  of 
his  country,  standing  in  the  face  of  the  foe 
in  defense  of  your  liberties  and  mine,  and 
in  support  of  the  government  tinder  which 
we  live ;  into  his  home,  while  away,  crept 
the  reptile,  in  the  guise  of  his  own  family 
protector,  and  debauched  his  wife.  You 
don’t  believe  that  Cole  was  insane  when  he 
slew  the  destroyer  of  his  wife,  of  his  honor, 
and  the  destroyer  of  his  peace,  who  made 
him  the  object  of  the  finger  of  scorn  and 
jeering  all  through  life  if  he  submitted  to 


it,  and  the  jest  of  his  associates.  Yot  ti 
believe  this  man  was  insane.  No  1 1 
the  community  believes  that  either  (  > 
Sickles  were  insane  ;  but  you  do  1  e 
that  to  have  hanged  these  men  wont  i 
been  an  outrage  on  natural  justice,  id 
disgrace  to  the  civilization  of  the  ag  ai 
adverse  to  the  moral  sense  of  evert  g 
thinking  man.  Those  verdicts  wer  * 
dered  under  the  guise  of  law  ;  but  n 
not  law.  Take  another  case.  He  a 
Pierce,  who  had  a  sister  whom  he  at  e 
he  had  grown  up  with  her  from  chile  >o 
had  accompanied  her  everywhere  h 
were  sole  companions,  entwining  bi 
hearts  with  brotherly  and  sisterly  affi  in 
in  bonds  as  strong  as  life  itself.  Unc  f 
promise  of  marriage  the  seducer  can  ai 
disrupted  those  tendiils.  Whei  tl 
ruined  brother  asked  for  satisfac  n 
marriage,  the  destroyer  treated  hiiri 
scorn,  spurned  him  with  a  scoff,  am  ai 
“I’ll  see  you  damned  first.”  Ft  tl 
brutal  remark  his  life  was  the  forfeit  B 
you  don’t  believe  that  brother  was  i  ai 
I  do  not.  Nobody  does  ;  nobody .« 
unless  it  be  the  demented  doctoiwl 
testified  to  it.  But  the  moral  see 
community  was  satisfied.  Now,  w  it 
the  principle  that  pervades  these  sa 
Can  you  point  to  me  a  case  anywle 
the  books,  any  one  among  all  this  i  at 
ous  array  of  cases  which  the  counst  10 
after  hour  read  to  you,  to  prove  tha  he 
was  such  a  thing  as  insanity  ?  and  tl 
an-ay  of  cases,  think  of  it,  was  the  o: 
of  them  where  the  person  w'lio  beca  ti 
avenger  was  a  guilty  party  ?  Tell  e 
there  was.  It  was  the  innocent  par 
was  the  outrage  perpetrated  on  him  hi 
■was  avenged.  Do  you  thiuk  insanity  ou 
have  been  found  if  the  guilty  worn  lit 
shot  the  man  instead  of  the  husbai  ? 
think  not.  You  would  say  to  he)  “ 
takes  two  to  commit  adultery  ;”  ano'bt 
God’s  command,  “Thou  slialt  not  cudi 
adultery,”  was  implanted  in  the  brst 
every  man  and  woman,  it  was  equallym 
ing  on  both  sexes.  To  the  worn:  ?( 
would  say,  “  You,  being  a  jiarticipit  i 
the  offense,  are  not  to  inflict  the  pedty 


145 


i  the  case  of  the  brother.  It  was 
j  sition  in  which  he  was  placed  before 
immunity  ;  it  was  the  outrage  upon 
u,  it  was  the  shock  to  his  feel- 
s,  and  the  thought  that  all  down 
oifh  life  he  was  a  marked  man,  to 
)i  it  could  be  said,  “  You  are  the  man 
os  sister  was  seduced,  and  you  sub- 
iti  to  it.”  The  husband  and  the 
>tl r  were  innocent.  Take  the  case  of 
ss  Harris,  at  Washington,  where  she 
k  he  weapon  in  her  own  hands.  She 
•i  mocent.  Her  victim  had  promised 
a  ry  her  ;  she  was  desperately  in  love 
h  im :  she  sought  him  out  under  the 
ir  of  a  great  outrage,  because  of  his 
mining  her.  She  killed  him  ;  but 
it  e  was  insane  you  don’t  believe.  It 
(r 1  she  is  now  in  the  Asylum  for  the 
but  she  is  there  probably  as  the 
ibf  killing  the  man  to  whom  she  was 
no od.  Every  impulse  of  her  heart  had 
uelmt  toward  him,  and  every  circum- 
.116  showed  that  it  was  more  probably 
rult  of  that  act  than  the  cause  of  it. 
dot  follow  in  these  cases  where  subse- 
■n  y  people  have  been  sent  to  a  lunatic 
hr.,  that  they  were  insane  before  the 
t-  eople  have  been  made  insane  by  the 
v 't  of  murder.  At  common  law,  where 
uaifound  another  in  the  act  of  inter¬ 
im  with  his  wife,  the  law  said  he  would 
unjustified  if  he  killed  him  on  the  spot, 
lowed  upon  that  as  a  sufficient  reason  ; 
d  iwent  no  further.  That  is  the  prin¬ 
ce  ping  at  the  bottom  of  those  cases, 
inch  I  have  expressed  to  you  here  ; 
w  a;  because  of  the  outrage  upon  him 
:  1:  wounded  honor,  because  his  domes- 
■  pice  was  destroyed,  because  he  was  a 
ai'kl  man  in  all  future  times.  In  these 
tteilays  the  sense  of  the  community  is, 
it  ids  principle  ought  to  be  extended, 
1  at  it  shall  not  be  confined  to  the 
iua  time  when  this  offense  is  committed, 
de  oral  sense  of  the  community  in 
lesej rses  is  that  the  innocent  shall  be  held 
amiss  if,  in  some  extreme  cases,  they 
ive  jaken  the  law  into  their  own  hands. 
mv, 1  this  such  a  case  ?  Let  us  look  at  the 
ets.  Let  us  see  if  this  case  is  anything 


but  the  ordinary  case  of  adultery  between 
man  and  woman.  If  you  sustain  the  de¬ 
fense  in  this  case  it  will  be  a  precedent 
that,  wherever  an  adultery  is  committed  it 
shall  be  right  for  the  woman,  under  all 
these  circumstances,  years  after,  if  need 
be,  to  take  her  paramour’s  life.  The 
principle  being  conceded  that  a  man  may 
kill  another  while  in  actual  intercourse 
with  his  wife,  then,  if  the  principle  of 
this  defense  is  true,  his  wife  may  kill  the 
paramour  in  the  act  or  at  any  time  afterward. 
That  is  the  principle  contended  for.  Now, 
will  it  impress  itself  upon  your  moral 
sense,  or  the  moral  sense  of  any  com¬ 
munity,  that  a  person  may  kill  another 
whom  he  or  she  may  have  received  in  an 
embrace,  in  the  very  act  ?  I  submit  to 
you,  there  is  no  such  appeal  to  your  moral 
sense.  Gentlemen,  when  that  proposition 
wras  made  to  you  it  did  not  occur  to  you, 
nor  did  it  occur  to  this  community,  as  it 
does  when  an  innocent  party  has  been  the 
avenger.  This  principle  was  first  asserted 
in  the  case  of  Laura  D.  Fair,  and  this  de¬ 
fense  was  stolen  body  and  soul  from  that 
case.  It  had  its  birth  on  the  far  distant 
shores  of  the  Pacific.  It  met  its  death 
there  at  the  hands  of  an  intelligent  jury — 
the  fate  it  deserved — in  a  verdict  of  guilty. 
Its  spirit  takes  its  flight  from  there,  and 
now,  for  the  first  time  it  rears  here  its 
polluting  form.  Now  this  case,  stripped 
of  all  the  appeals  that  have  been  so  for¬ 
cibly  made  to  you — to  your  feelings  and 
your  sympathies,  all  of  which  can  be  made 
the  more  readily  because  there  is  a  growing- 
feeling  in  the  community  against  capital 
punishment — and,  I  hope,  the  time  will 
come,  when  it  has  grown  and  blossomed  to 
maturity — that  it  is  not  wise  for  men  to 
hang  other  men  ;  that  this  had  better  be 
left  with  God  to  kill.  We  feel  reluctance 
to  convict  in  a  capital  case  ;  it  is  an  act 
which  we  feel  all  through  life  afterwards 
might  possibly  have  been  unjustifiable. 
There  is  another  thing.  There  is  a  reluc¬ 
tance  to  inflicting  this  penalty  upon  women. 
No  man  born  and  bred  a  gentleman,  no 
man  born  with  the  instincts  of  a  man  in 
his  bosom  does  not  inherently  feel  a  sym- 


146 


pathy  with  women.  It  is  one  of  the  evi¬ 
dences  of  civilization.  It  is  one  of  the  de¬ 
velopments  of  the  intelligence  of  the  age  ; 
and  if  it  were  not  so,  society  would  fall 
back  to  a  state  of  barbarism  and  chaos. 
No  better  evidence  could  be  adduced  of 
the  decline  of  the  social  fabric  and  a  ten¬ 
dency  toward  barbarism  than  the  fact  that 
this  noble  and  manly  sentiment  had  ceased 
to  animate  us.  And  it  is  peculiar,  beyond 
all  others,  to  the  American  people.  It  is  a 
subject  of  common  remark  that  there  is 
more  deference  to  women  among  the  edu¬ 
cated  American  people  than  any  other  on 
the  face  of  the  earth — a  most  conclusive 
evidence  of  their  advancement  in  civiliza¬ 
tion.  Here  is  where  the  Prosecution  in 
this  case  has  the  most  to  contend  against. 
These  are  grounds  on  which  impassioned 
appeals  have  been  made  to  you;  and  to 
these  instincts,  which,  as  men,  are  in  your 
breasts.  But  are  wre  to  decide  questions 
in  that  way  ?  Are  we  to  assume  a  state  of 
facts,  and  then  apply  these  noble  prin¬ 
ciples  to  them  in  a  court  of  justice.  Do 
those  facts  exist  ?  That  is  the  question. 
Let  us  see  what  the  facts  are. 

This  girl,  something  over  fifteen  years 
of  age,  goes  to  work  in  this  factory. 
Precocious,  intelligent  beyond  her  years, 
experienced  more  than  others  of  her 
age,  she  remains  there  for  six  months. 
Assuming  the  fact  to  be  that  she 
is  seduced — she  has  intercourse  with  a 
man  of  family,  known  by  her  to  be 
so.  What  occurred  before  this  inter¬ 
course  nobody  can  tell — at  least  nobody 
does.  The  remarks  on  the  disparity  of 
age  are  already  before  you  in  another 
branch  of  the  case.  She  continues  this 
intimacy  for  a  considerable  period  of  time 
— a  year  or  more — and  then  she  marries. 
All  that  time — and  it  is  brought  up  here  as 
one  of  the  main  features  of  this  defense — 
she  was  attending  Sunday  School ;  she 
took  part  in  the  exercises  of  the  school ; 
she  attended  regularly ;  was  an  excellent 
scholar,  high  in  moral  character,  and 
never  known  to  act  out  of  the  wray.  Sup¬ 
pose  it  had  been  whispered  in  the  ears  of 
those  Sabbath  School  teachers  who  testi¬ 


fied  here,  a  month  before  she  w&  m 
ried,  that  “this  girl  is  only  unti 
guise  of  morality,  that  there  is  an  as  ^ 
tion  of  innocence  on  her  part ;  and  hit 
she  is  reciting  from  the  Holy  Book  ( }| 
and  listening  to  the  utterances  c  he 
teachers,  she  is  in  the  continuance  o  la 
terv  ;  do  you  know  that  she  has  be  fc 
a  year  voluntarily  submitting  to  tla 
braces  of  a  married  man  ?  ”  Would  is 
witnesses,  when  called  upon  in  a  cc  ti 
justice  to  testify,  have  said  that  her  m 
acter  was  excellent  ?  I  think  not.  iic 
of  it.  She  had  become  seventeen  at 
of  age,  or  thereabouts  ;  she  attende  th 
Sabbath  School  all  the  time,  and  h  i 
genuity  enough,  design  enough  and  ^ 
tion  enough  to  impose  upon  them  .  i 
human  being  suspecting.  I  liana 
“voluntarily.”  Why  not?  If  it  w;  n 
voluntarily,  what  was  it  ?  She  d 
father,  she  had  a  step-mother ;  sh  v 
living  with  them  ;  she  had  a  Sunday !  M 
teacher,  in  whom  she  could  natural!  iff 
confidence,  if  virtuous  ;  she  had  ass  ii 
scholars  who  went,  to  school  witl  bf 
some  older  than  herself.  Did  sboi 
plain  to  anybody  about  it  ?  If  this  ‘  re 
grief”  was  pressing  upon  her,  :fl 
“great  grief”  that  caused  insanit  * 
weighing  down  on  her  mind,  teariji 
her-  flesh  by  piece-meal,  reducing  he  to 
skeleton,  is  it  not  a  little  strange  tb  » 
spoke  of  it  to  no  human  being  ?  T 
counsel  appreciated  that.  He  undto 
to  say  she  had  not  any  confidante.  1 1 
confidante  !  Look  at  the  circumstjo 
“Voluntarily,”  then,  I  say.  Thei'» 
not  an  hour,  there  was  not  a  mi  a 
when  she  might  not  have  madehersefi 
from  that  connection  ;  there  was  mW 
when  she  might  not  have  avoided  it  B 
this  is  not  all.  Three  months  aft.  tl 
she  resumed  and  continued  this  int: »« 
this  “ innocent  girl,”  who  ought,!'1" 
of  her  innocence,  to  be  dismissed  fro!  tl 
court-room  with  the  benedictions  j  I 
jury,  kept  up  this  intimacy  while  si  * 
deceiving  the  man  to  whom  she  waO 
married.  She  was  about  to  take  th  n 
to  one  of  the  most  holy  relations  of  bi 


147 


m.  nature  is  capable,  if  it  is  genuine  ; 
a  that  time  while  he  was  courting  her, 
kliose  endearments  which  always  at- 
1  lat  peculiar  relation  were  practiced 
v  n  them — this  “artless,”  this  “inno- 
t  girl  was  deceiving  this  man.  She 
rid  this  young  man,  and  one  month 
riiot  to  exceed  two,  she  renewed  this 
impy.  She  made  him  promise  on  the 
dy  lible  that  he  would  not  renew  it ;  and 
ir>ne  month  after  she  renewed  it.  Was 
:  t  s  promise  understood  to  be  mutual? 
abas  it  that  induced  her  thus  to  re- 
lis  intimacy  ?  Was  that  the  time 
erne  threatened  her  with  exposure  ? 
poire  !  Think  of  it !  Here  is  a  hus- 
1  o  defend  her;  here  is  her  father 
onshe  left  because  he  so  much  as  sug- 
te<  to  her  that  this  seemed  to  be  the 
■ ,  it  she  indignantly  tells  him  that  she 
i  tie  care  of  herself.  Was  not  that  a 
orijle  opportunity  for  her  to  rid  herself 
u  bis  appalling  thraldom  ?  Was  not 

i  <  opportunity  for  her  to  divest  her- 
E  c  this  great  and  secret  grief  ?  Was 
re,  curse  hanging  over  her  or  upon 

?  She  did  not  think  there  was.  She 
tiujy  spurned  her  father,  and  three 

ii  terward  she  left  his  house.  Well, 
vs  her  husband.  Deceased  renewed 
itimacy  ;  she  renewed  it.  Now  we 

e  •  rived  at  the  point  where  the  cont¬ 


ent  especially  reaches  them ;  now 
iltery  in  the  broadest  sense  in  which 
ai  be  stated.  She  is  deceiving  her 
ibal — if  he  was  deceived,  which  is  not 
fcai-she  continues  this  adulterous  in- 
ac;  She  says  that  he  threatened  her 
h  iposure ;  and  it  is  a  singular  fact 
1 1.  only  coercion  of  any  kind  which 
te  ified  to,  with  her  lips  open  in  her 
i  i  fense,  here  as  she  is  under  the 
it  eadful  circumstances  in  which  a 
nai  being  can  be  placed,  charged  with 
ofLise  the  penalty  of  which  is  death, 
It  eiry  inducement  that  could  possibly 
fel:  1  upon  on  the  mind  of  the  prisoner 
ra£i3  tier  own  statement  in  the  most 
nae  way,  with  counsel  nine  years 
tistned  to  stage  effect,  and  entirely 
ipvnt  to  bring  it  m  with  immense 


eclat — and  what  does  she  testify  to  ?  The 
only  coercion  he  exercised  was  that  of  ex¬ 
posure.  A  married  man  with  five  children! 
With  business  in  the  community,  a  reputa¬ 
tion  there,  with  a  daughter  fifteen  or  six¬ 
teen  years  of  age,  and  yet  this  “girl,”  as 
she  is  called,  tells  you  that  she  was  induced 
to  renew  this  intimacy  through  fear  of  ex¬ 
posure,  within  one  month  after  she  had 
taken  this  young  man  and  sworn  before 
the  altar  of  God,  in  the  presence  of  His 
minister,  under  circumstances  as  sacred  as 
a  human  being  could  be  placed,  that  she 
would  live  in  honor  of  him  !  Well,  the 
best  commentary  I  can  make  on  that  is 
another  part  of  her  testimony  where  she 
tells  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  that  when 
she  told  her  husband  of  it,  why,  Watson 
begged  like  a  dog  that  she  would  not  ex¬ 
pose  him,  for  fear  of  the  effect  on  his 
family,  as  she  says,  when  her  husband 
threatened  to  take  legal  proceedings  against 
him.  Is  not  that  a  commentary  on  the 
claim  that  this  woman  was  coerced  by 
threats  of  exposure  ?  Did  not  she  know 
what  you  know,  and  what  every  person 
knows,  that  he  had  every  thing  to 
lose  in  comparison  to  her?  He  had  five 
children  growing  up,  and  a  wife,  and  yet 
you  are  asked  to  believe  this  was  a  thral¬ 
dom  of  this  man  over  her. 

What  is  the  next  fact  developed  here  ? 
She  goes  to  New  Britain.  Was  she  com¬ 
pelled  to  go  there  ?  She  was  an  expert 
work-woman ;  her  own  father  was  in  the 
same  business — her  father  whom  she  had 
left;  she  had  worked  at  it  from  the  age  of 
eight  years,  and  was  the  smartest  woman 
that  could  be  found  in  that  line  of  busi¬ 
ness.  What  occasion  was  there  for  her  to 
go  to  New  Britain  ?  Counsel  says  she  re¬ 
ceived  a  letter,  and  then  the  agony  was 
upon  her.  Well,  you  would  think  that 
letter  was  a  great  chain  around  her  person 
with  some  hideous  monster  at  the  other 
end  of  it  dragging  her  along  against  her 
will.  It  don’t  appear  what  it  was.  But 
can  you  conceive  of  a  letter  that  would 
coerce  this  woman  to  go  to  New  Britain  if 
she  did  not  desire  to  go  ?  She  goes  there. 
While  there  she  visits  him  and  his  family. 


148 


There  is  a  position  where  one  would  think 
she  could  rid  herself  of  this  thraldom  if 
she  desired  to,  if  ever  there  was  to  be  such 
a  position.  There  was  the  wife  of  the 
man,  there  were  his  five  children,  all  at 
home,  of  the  man  wThom  this  intimacy  had 
so  debauched  that  it  drew  him  from  his 
family,  his  house  and  fireside;  there  was 
this  wife,  now  widow,  who  came  upon  the 
stand  here — this  matronly  woman,  with  all 
the  feminine  instincts, — imagine  the  feel¬ 
ings  of  this  prisoner,  this  partner  in  this 
criminal  intimacy,  when  she  went  to  that 
house;  imagine  her  feelings  if  she  was 
human.  She  goes  through  it,  and  tells 
you  even  of  the  proposition  made  to  get 
rid  of  the  wife  on  Sunday  evening,  in  order 
that  this  intercourse  might  be  renewed. 
She  does  not  tell  you  that  she  objected  to 
it;  she  don’t  say  whether  she  in  any  way 
objected  to  it,  nor  whether  the  proposition 
was  carried  out.  Do  you  suppose  it  oc¬ 
curred  to  her  that  the  influence  she  was 
exerting  over  this  man  enticed  him  from 
his  family  ?  She  was  “  fond  of  children;” 
she  “caressed  children.”  She  probably 
caressed  his  children.  No  emotion  de- 
veloped  itself  there.  At  length  she  ex¬ 
posed  this  fact  to  her  husband,  she  tells 
you,  and  Watson  begged  she  would  not 
expose  him.  Well,  she  returned  to  Brook¬ 
lyn  with  her  husband,  and  it  was  two  or 
three  months  before  Watson  came  back. 
Then  the  intimacy  was  renewed  again,  and 
she  then  tells  you  she  was  induced  to  do  it 
by  threats.  These  probably  are  the  same 
threats  to  which  she  has  already  referred — 
threats  of  exposure.  These  are  the  only 
threats.  At  any  rate  it  should  have  oc¬ 
curred  to  her  then — Watson’s  sensibilities 
on  the  subject  of  exposure.  Why  he  be¬ 
sought  her  and  her  husband  not  to  hold 
his  family  up  to  disgrace.  Did  it  occur 
then  to  her  to  say— “  Watson,  I  can  ex¬ 
pose  you,  if  you  attempt  to  renew  this  in¬ 
timacy.  Bemember  the  time  when  you 
begged  I  would  not  expose  you;  I  can 
hold  you  now  ?”  Nothing.  This  offended 
woman,  thoroughly  in  this  thraldom,  who 
cannot  get  away  from  the  influence  of  this 
man  and  his  coercion,  she  don’t  see  this 


process  of  accomplishing  this  resul  yj 
the  intimacy  still  goes  on.  WatsoD  to¬ 
wards  visits  the  house.  The  exposu  M 
been  made  to  her  husband,  and  sh  oi- 
tinues  to  work  at  the  factory  or  f  tl 
factory.  Watson  continues  to  call  ten 
as  before,  when  her  husband  was  ier- 
and  when  he  was  not  there,  a  wt  m 
visitor.  The  husband  knew  all  abot  H 
What  did  he  suppose  Watson  was  1% 
for  ?  There  is  no  getting  away  frc  tit 
conclusion  that  her  husband  conmiu 
this  matter;  there  is  no  getting  aw  a;  -an 
the  conclusion  that  he  gave  his  «i 
to  this  relation  between  this  man  aD  thi- 
woman. 

Well,  now,  what  else  ?  This  accc  tin 
is  to  be  tried  on  evidence.  What  ev  net 
has  been  adduced  different  from  \\  t  ] 
have  stated  ?  Where  is  the  proof  i  kin 
coercion  ?  Where  is  the  influenc  that 
kept  her  at  the  factory  ?  Where  tl 
thraldom  that  kept  her  to  work  f o:  fat- 
son  ?  Where  is  the  influence  wine  pre¬ 
vented  her  telling  anybody  of  it  ■  tepi 
her  husband  ?  Where  is  it  ?  Livin  nth 
two  men,  receiving  the  embraces  « two 
men  !  She  had  experience  enough  SL 
knows  the  world.  This  innocent  wi  ai  I 
Now,  come  down  to  the  day  of  the  mil 
cide.  No  human  being  saw  an; um 
■wrong  down  to  that  day.  But  shtdl| 
you  lie  had  threatened  her,  abuse  her, 
accused  her  of  being  with  other  me  haj 
called  her  opprobrious  names  ;  one  the 
witnesses  says  he  had  threatened  dis¬ 
charge  her  the  day  before.  They  d  not 
get  along  harmoniously.  This  rt  tint 
terminated  as  it  always  does.  Wli  thi 
Creator  said,  Thou  shalt  not  commhdnl 
tery,  He  affixed  to  it  a  penalty ;  ** 
that  people  cannot  live  together  tk; 
harmoniously  and  happily.  Ther  is  i 
gnawing  conscience,  and  if  there  no 
that  there  is  some  other  principle  t’t  in 
terferes.  What  was  it  here  ?  ^ t-'01 

began  to  be  jealous.  He  thoug  sh1 
went  with  other  men.  He  might  hay)«a 
wrong.  Yon  are  bound  to  assume  ill 
was  wrong.  It  existed  ;  it  is  incidpt  b 
the  relation.  He  was  a  man  fifty  y 130 


149 


he  was  a  young  woman  with  a  hus- 
1.  She  was  getting  tired  of  him.  It 
e  sculiarity  of  this  relation  that,  not 
<y  edded,  it  tires.  There  is  nothing 
ii  parties  together  in  violation  of 
s  aws,  and,  in  the  long  run,  those 
a ’ays  win.  He  was  getting  jealous, 
wl  high  spirited.  She  felt  that  she 
vi  ded  to  this  man  willingly  and  vol- 
rij;,  year  after  year,  all  that  she  had, 
si  felt  wronged  at  the  idea  that  he 
ilci  have  been  jealous.  He  might 
;  len  wrong.  He  kept  accusing  her 
lie  things.  It  was  not  new.  It  had 
irrll  before.  They  were  getting  tired 
ike  was  getting  sick  of  him.  She 
n  the  same  ardor  nor  fervor  in  his 
pay  as  before.  He  was  getting  older; 
in  er  prime.  The  disparity  was  get- 
gmter,  if  there  was  no  other  motive. 

hat  ?  These  threats  probably  oc- 
edj  She  goes  with  her  brother  and 
s  tj;  pistol.  Her  brother  asks  her  if 
w  suit  her.  She  thinks  it  will.  Two 
i-s  fter  that  she  takes  it  from  her 
reion  the  morning  of  the  homicide, 
sis  she  bought  that  pistol  to  make 
>r  ent  to  her  husband.  The  question 
“to  you  think  that  will  suit  you  ?  >» 
“>o  you  think  that  will  suit  him  ?  ” 
yo  i  think  that  is  the  kind  of  a  pistol  he 
id  ke  ?  Men  do  not  ordinarily  like 
kid.  Be  that  as  it  may,  she  takes 
piol  in  her  bosom  next  morning, 
sai  she  did  it  to  frighten  him.  Here 
nn  forty  to  fifty  years  of  age  ;  she  is 
>g  frighten  him  !  How?  How  she 
’in  to  frighten  him  is  not  explained, 
i  n.  know  how  except  to  shoot.  Prob- 
S3  was  going  to  frighten  him  by 
’tii ,  for  the  pistol  was  not  only  loaded 
on  bullet,  but  by  several  more, 
ditji  him  from  what  ?  Does  a  woman 
t  a  istol  to  protect  her  virtue  ?  The 
ier  g  look,  the  scorn  and  indignation, 
re  demeanor  of  the  virtuous  woman 
■  he  such  a  proposition  is  made  is  her 
tecjjm.  She  needs  no  more.  It  is  not 
'•  vrhat  was  it  ?  You  may  believe 
toe  it  to  frighten  him,  if  you  can. 
!Se  idications  of  her  appearance  that 


day,  was  there  not  reason  enough  for  them 
without  assigning  insanity  ?  She  was 
there  contemplating  this  murder.  Let  us 
imagine  the  thought  in  her  mind  : 

“  He  accused  me  last  night  of  being  with 
other  men.  He  threatens  to  discharge  me;  he 
has  called  me  opprobrious  names  after  all  that 
I  have  yielded  to  him.  If  he  does  it  again  I 
will  kill  him.  ” 

That  is  the  plain  statement  of  the  case. 
He  does  it  again.  She  goes  below  in  the 
forenoon  at  eleven  o’clock  and  returns 
again,  and  he  then  accuses  her  of  being 
down  there  with  another  man.  Then  she 
resolved  to  caiwy  it  into  effect.  She  sat 
down  by  the  stove  and  the  struggle  en¬ 
sued.  When  she  sat  there  what  were  the 
thoughts  that  influenced  her?  “I  have 
resolved  to  kill  this  man;  I  have  got  a 
weapon  here  to  do  it ;  he  has  again 
insulted  me;  it  shall  be  done.  I  will  now 
carry  out  this  fixed  purpose.  ”  There  is  no 
looking  down  into  the  depths  of  human 
nature.  Some  women  would  have  quailed 
at  this  contemplation.  But  history  shows 
that  some  of  the  worst  crimes  have  been 
committed  by  women.  She  says  it  shall 
be  done.  Then  she  speaks  out,  and  in  the 
struggle  between  conscience  and  the  re¬ 
solve  to  perpetrate  the  act  she  says — “I 
wish  I  were  dead;”  in  other  words — “  The 
struggle  is  too  great  for  me  to  bear.”  But 
she  does  bear  it.  She  knows  what  time 
Watson  goes  out.  His  custom  is  to  go 
about  five  minutes  before  twelve  to  his 
dinner.  She  precedes  him  about  three 
minutes,  and  between  three  minutes  to 
twelve  o’clock  and  twelve  o'clock  the  man 
is  dead.  What  occurred  there  on  that 
occasion  no  living  person  knows  but  she 
who  perpetrated  the  act.  The  victim  can¬ 
not  testify.  But  I  say  to  you,  gentlemen, 
here  to-day,  that  her  statement  cannot  pos¬ 
sibly  be  true.  At  any  rate,  be  that  as  it  may, 
the  next  thing,  or  three  hours  after  that,  she 
surrenders  herself,  and  there  with  her  hus¬ 
band,  brother  and  father,  she  makes  a 
statement  to  which  I  shall  presently  refer. 
But  first  on  this  subject  of  coercion.  She 
tells  you  that  she  went  out  into  the  hall 
and  that  he  again  made  there  accusations 
against  her.  She  says,  “he  seized  hervio- 


150 


lently  in  a  lewd  way,  in  an  indecent  way, 
and  insisted  in  their  going  out  for  a  pur¬ 
pose  that  they  had  often  before  gone  for  ; 
that  he  seized  her  twice,  and  that  she  resist¬ 
ed,  and  that  some  how  or  other  she  shot  him ; 
she  did  not  fire  but  once  ;  she  did  not  in¬ 
tend  to  shoot  him  ;  she  don’t  know  exactly 
how  she  fired — at  anyrate  she  did  not  in¬ 
tend  to  kill  him.  She  knew  nothing  of 
it.” 

Now,  gentlemen,  think  of  the  probabili¬ 
ties  of  the  truth  of  that  statement.  She 
knows  she  can  never  be  contradicted 
by  any  human  witness.  She  knows  she 
has  ingenious  counsel  to  advise  with  her, 
and  she  tells  her  story  in  that  court  under 
the  pressure  from  the  trial  for  this  crime. 
Now  as  to  the  direction  of  this  wound. 
She  is  not  particularly  a  short  girl ;  he  is 
five  feet  nine  or  ten  inches  in  height.  This 
ball  enters  behind  the  ear,  not  in  front, 
passes  up,  and  would  have  come  out  at 
the  top  of  the  head  if  it  had  continued. 
That  shot  could  not  have  been  fired  by  any 
person  who  was  not  some  ways  below  the 
deceased.  If  the  wound  had  been  in 
front  it  might  be  conceived  that  the  pistol 
was  held  low  and  was  accidentally  dis¬ 
charged.  But  the  ball  comes  from  be¬ 
hind  and  below  at  such  an  angle  it  would 
have  been  impossible  unless  from  almost 
directly  below.  It  could  not  have  been 
fired  in  any  proximity  to  the  victim  as  it 
would  have  blackened  the  neck.  There 
is  no  place  within  three  feet  where  it  could 
have  been  fired.  I  appeal  to  your  own  ex¬ 
perience  on  that  subject  if  it  was  not  so. 
I  say  that  pistol  was  fired  from  the  lower 
floor.  The  direction  of  the  shot  proves  it. 
Other  circumstances  prove  it ;  and  this 
statement  is  only  another  part  of  this  stage 
effect.  Standing  down  in  the  hall  below, 
as  he  came  down  those  stairs,  she  knowing 
the  time  he  came  down,  she  stood  there, 
and  as  he  turned  back  pn  seeing  her 
armed,  fired  almost  beneath  him,  and  it 
went  up  in  the  direction  which  the  wound 
indicated.  She  lay  in  wait  for  him,  waited 
for  his  coming.  When  she  was  found  she 
was  found  on  that  floor  near  the  door. 
How  happened  it  this  woman  went  down 


those  stairs  to  the  door  below  ?  fa* 
happened  it  that  she  followed  that  pi 
tumbling  down  those  stairs  if  it  coul  w( 
fallen  down  the  whole  flight  and  is  ml 
there  ?  Is  it  not  more  probable  th  & 
would  have  turned  to  the  door  abo-  on 
of  which  he  came  and  where  she  wi  eil 
But  she  is  found  below.  Now  anotl  in- 
probability  in  this  story.  They  woui  ut, 
you  believe  that  this  man’s  intent  hi 
that  time  were  to  seek  another  of  th ;» 
terviews. 

Let  us  see  the  probability  of  that,  la 
is  a  woman  afflicted  with  a  disease,  ;■ 
ture  of  which  you  are  called  uj  fc 
imagine  ;  and  also  with  the  peculii  on 
dition  of  woman  at  stated  period*  8k 
was  so  afflicted  by  each  of  these  corn  oil 
that  it  affected  her  severely  ;  this  n  i,  » 
she  alleges — and  we  have  her  testim  rfc 
it,  as  we  have  in  most  all  these  ms  rs- 
gave  her  medicine  to  bring  on  these  p  :ods 
and,  as  she  said,  kept  “track  of  ml 
She  was  asked  the  question  ;  this  id  n 
in  my  mind ;  I  wanted  to  see  what  i  far 
was  ;  I  asked  her  whether  she  was  & 
habit  of  informing  him,  or  whether  kep 
account  of  the  time  when  these  nod 
should  arrive,  she  said  he  kept  the  a  rad 
On  her  own  theory  and  statement,  T  tan 
knowing  she  was  in  this  conditio  in 
knowing  the  severity  of  these  perio  to 
the  complications  of  her  disorders,  unr 
asked  to  believe,  that  he,  with  that  ncl 
ledge,  was  insisting  on  her  going  o1  witl 
him  for  that  purpose  ;  this  is  incitibk 
The  first  thing  she  says  is  in  needs* 
with  the  facts,  “He  was  the  ruinaWH 
me.” — That  is  the  way  any  worn  an  rod 
express  herself  as  to  a  man  with  wliasi 
had  been  guilty  of  adultery.”  “id 
the  ruination  of  me,  and  I  shot  him  ji 
was  not  any  immediate  collision  Bl 
she  says  she  did  not  remember  wit  sb 
said.  Do  you  believe  she  did  not  jnen 
ber  what  she  said  ?  Let  us  see.  S  mi 
Ellen  Curley  at  the  door,  and  she  id  > 
Ellen  Curley,  ‘  ‘  Watson  is  lying  at  t“  fa 
of  the  stairs  ;  I  killed  him  shtkw 
pretty  well  what  she  had  done  then  U 
doctor  says  the  prisoner  might  kno  wh 


151 


cl,  and  still  be  insane.  'But  to  the 
nan  mind,  when  a  person  relates  a 
3i  ant  of  facts  correctly — makes  no  mis¬ 
ts  bout  it — if  you  meet  a  person  in  the 
ei  and  he  details  information  to  you 
joves  to  be  true,  the  presumption  is 
;  1  is  sane.  It  don’t  appear  where  she 
aer  this  occurence  until  an  hour  and 
d  thereafter,  except  from  her  own 
ci;nt.  Biit  while  on  this  lower  floor, 
bther,  with  whom  she  went  to  pur¬ 
se  his  pistol,  makes  his  appearance  ; 

iat  does  he  say  ? — “Fanny,  I  told 
nj  to  do  this.  ”  There  was  no  mistake 
uthe  person  whom  he  addressed.  The 
us  says  that  is  not  to  be  believed,  be- 
se  obody  else  testified  to  it.  Does  any- 
ly  mtradict  it  ?  Is  there  any  occasion 
ih  prosecution  to  bring  a  half  dozen 
netes  on  a  question  that  is  not  dis- 
ed  That  would  be  a  new  way  of  try- 
a  ise.  Other  witnesses  were  put  on 
siad  by  the  prosecution,  who  were 
re  t  the  time ;  does  the  counsel  ask 
m  hether  he  said  that  ?  He  does  not 
itu:  the  question  ;  he  knows  what  the 
£  will  be.  But  more  than  that,  the 
ns  gave  notice  during  the  trial  that 
other  would  be  produced  whenever 
reaired  him.  For  two  months,  or  a 
nthnd  a  half,  we  have  been  trying  to 
1  hn.  He  is  gone  ;  but  he  seems  to  be 
lerhe  control  of  the  counsel,  and  he 
dd  roduce  him  at  this  trial.  This  tes- 

■  'ii  came  out  before  the  coroner.  The 
'onj,’s  minutes  are  accessible  to  counsel 

thdefense,  and  he  read  them  and  saw 
•m.l  He  had  a  right  to  believe  that  that 
may  would  be  produced  here.  Where 
b  rother  to  contradict  it  ?  Where  is 
hi  her  to  explain  it,  if  it  is  capable  of 
iai  tion  ?  It  all  amounts  just  to  this  ; 

■  an  her  brother  had  talked  it  over  ;  she 
1  tel  her  brother  what  Watson  had  said 
uermd  she  meant  to  take  revenge  on 
n.  |!  Fanny,  I  told  you  not  to  do  this.” 

and  a  half  afterwards  she  went  to 
ion  house.  Where  was  she  in  the 


i  he 
b  si 

ant  ie  ?  She 


it.  i 


om 


says 


she  was  in  that 


low  although  it  be  true  ordinarily 
at  o  i  witness  uncontradicted  is  enough 


for  one  fact,  yet  where  the  witness  is  the 
prisoner  on  trial,  and  has  inducements  to 
testify  in  her  own  favor,  as  she  must  have, 
it  behooves  her  to  have  some  evidence  in 
confirmation  of  this  fact ;  I  don’t  believe  it. 
I  believe — and  it  is  a  fair  conjecture  on  the 
circumstances  of  the  case — that  rather  than 
being  in  that  room  pending  the  public  ex¬ 
citement,  their  relations  and  friends  con¬ 
gregated  about  her  somewheres,  and  talked 
this  over,  to  see  how  they  could  get  out  of 
this  awful  situation  in  which  this  criminal 
act  had  placed  her  ;  and  it  is  a  significant 
circumstance  that  when  she  went  to  de¬ 
liver  herself  up  she  says  she  had  no  con¬ 
versation  with  anybody  present  on  the 
subject  of  the  killing  during  the  time. 
Remember  that.  No  person  had  told  her 
Watson  was  killed.  For  what  did  she  go 
to  give  herself  up  ?  She  did  not  know  at 
the  time  of  the  killing  that  he  was  dead. 
No  one  told  her  before  she  went  to  the 
station  house  that  she  had  committed  this 
homicide.  Where  did  the  information 
come  from  that  led  her  to  the  station 
house  ?  I  ask  you  to  answer  that  ques¬ 
tion,  if  you  can.  They  had  been  some 
where  contriving  this  explanation  what 
she  should  say  at  the  station  house.  It 
did  not  occur  to  them  that  she  was  insane; 
that  was  for  the  subsequent  astuteness  of 
counsel  and  his  peculiar  stage  effect.  She 
goes  to  the  station  house;  she  met  Capt. 
Woglom.  Now  this  was  a  pretty  natural 
transaction,  and  the  key  to  the  whole  case 
is  there.  She  said  to  Capt.  Woglom,  “  He 
seduced  me.”  I  think  I  ought  to  read  the 
exact  testimony,  because  it  is  just  to  her 
as  well  as  to  every  one.  In  Capt.  Wog- 
lom’s  testimony  he  said  : 

She  said  they  had  the  night  before  had  a  quar¬ 
rel  in  the  shop,  and  he  had  told  her  she  was 
going  with  other  men,  and  that  she  was  so 
worked  up  in  her  mind. 

This  does  not  appear  to  be  the  entire 
testimony  ;  at  any  rate,  the  substance  was 
that  he  had  seduced  her  ;  that  he  had  fol¬ 
lowed  her  in  the  street,  in  her  house  and 
at  her  home  ;  that  he  had  threatened  her, 
and  accused  her  the  night  before  of  being 
with  other  men  :  had  called  her  epithets, 
which  she  named ;  that  she  could  not 


152 


stand  it  any  longer,  and  had  shot  him  for 
satisfaction.  Could  not  stand  what  any 
longer  ?  She  details  the  opprobrious  epi¬ 
thets  and  charges,  and  the  abuse  he  heaped 
upon  her,  and  in  referring  to  that  said : 
“I  shot  him  for  satisfaction.”  Satisfac¬ 
tion  !  What  does  that  mean  ?  Is  there 
anything  implied  in  that  word  ?  Is  not 
that  the  key  to  the  motive  actuating  this 
deed  ?  Satisfaction  for  what  ?  ‘  ‘  Satis¬ 

faction  because  he  called  me  opprobrious 
names  and  accused  me  of  being  with  other 
men.  ”  Did  she  say  then  as  she  says  now  : 
“He  pulled  me  violently  on  the  stairs?” 
Did  she  say  then  :  “He  committed  a  per¬ 
sonal  indignity  on  me  ?  ”  Nothing  of  the 
kind.  The  “  stage  effect  ”  was  not  yet  pre¬ 
pared.  She  delivers  herself  to  the  station 
house.  She  talks  to  Sergeant  Bunce.  I 
have  his  testimony  here  verbatim  : 

I  asked  her  where  she  shot  him.  She  said, 
‘upstairs.”  I  asked  her  what  she  shot  him 
for.  She  said  he  had  abused  her  and  insulted 
her.  I  asked  her  if  he  struck  her.  She  said 
no,  that  he  abused  her  and  called  her  names. 
She  said  she  went  down  stairs  that  morning, 
after  she  came  up  he  accused  her  of  being 
down  stairs  with  another  man,  and  she  shot 
him. 

Now,  what  is  the  import  of  that  lan¬ 
guage  ?  Could  there  be  a  plainer  view  of 
the  motive  for  that  deed  ?  The  counsel 
complained  that  the  prosecution  had  not 
developed  a  motive.  The  motive  is  before 
yon,  in  the  view  of  the  prosecution.  She 
subsequently  talked  with  Detective  Lan- 
gan.  Now,  gentlemen,  there  are  two  ways 
of  disposing  of  evidence  where  it  is  not 
satisfactory.  One  is  to  say  you  don’t  be¬ 
lieve  it,  and  to  belittle  it  and  sav  it  is 
improper  as  a  declaration  of  the  prisoner. 
There  is  another  way  not  quite  so  honor¬ 
able,  not  quite  so  fail-,  but  it  is  often  re¬ 
sorted  to  by  counsel  in  the  trial  of  a  case  ; 
even  fair  counsel — counsel  who  try  cases 
so  fairly  and  honorably  that  they  can  sit 
in  judgment  on  opposing  counsel — even 
such  counsel  sometimes  resort  to  that  prac¬ 
tice,  and  that  is  to  abuse  witnesses.  When 
Detective  Langan  went  off  from  this  stand 
to  meet  with  that  sneer  from  the  counsel 
that  made  this  audience  laugh — a  sneer 
peculiar  to  this  very  correct  counsel — had 


Detective  Langan  said  anything  b  * 
rant  that  ?  In  his  deportment  was  | 
anything  to  justify  a  fair  and  hon 
counsel  to  treat  him  in  that  way,  < 
that  the  testimony  was  damaging 
case  ?  In  summing  up  he  berates  th 
for  five  or  ten  minutes,  in  language  ’ 
if  he  deserved  it,  showed  immense  s 
the  part  of  counsel  on  the  other  s 
the  use  of  epithets  and  abuse.  Whi  i 
Detective  Langan  done  ?  A  detect 
the  police  force  ;  his  exclusive  bush  i 
look  after  crime,  protecting  you  ai 
when  we  are  sleeping  in  our  quiet  3 
when  we  are  in  the  midst  of  our  fa  i 
and  enjoying  ourselves  in  domestic  t 
— such  a  man  as  he,  ferreting  out  i 
for  the  protection  of  that  fireside  1 1 
which  we  sit — I  know  nothing  in  hi: » 
pation  which  merits  abuse.  I  know  n  ac, 
in  his  manner  which  merits  abuse.  la 
tlemen,  I  leave  that  with  you.  Was  iai 
anything  in  this  act  which  merit  i; 
He  was  ordered  to'bring  this  woma:  na 
the  Fifth  Precinct  station  house  to  A 
Headquarters.  He  was  not  responsi  ifa 
that.  He  was  personally  detailed  >g 
with  her.  They  went  down  in  tin  an 
She  had  been  to  the  station  house,  4I 
under  the  express  injunction  of  In  In 
band  to  tell  the  whole  story,  she  ha  cm 
fessed  the  homicide,  had  given  the  itn 
and  had  told  her  story.  He  w;  n 
“pumping”  her,  as  ordinarily  d iffl 
nated,  for  information.  They  alrea  U 
that.  There  was  nothing  new  to  brim 
out  with  relation  to  the  killing  ai  wi 
did  it.  He  did  not  think  it  any  offa.1 
talk  with  her  on  the  way  down  on  dear 
and  he  did  so.  It  did  not  occur  hi 
that  he  would  be  entitled  to  be  abulfc 
that.  Is  he  to  be  abused  for  not  tes  via 
on  the  coroner’s  inquest,  when  he  'sn 
called  to  testify  ?  The  coroner’s  ]Ur 
is  not  the  trial  of  a  case  ;  it  is  to  as  rUi 
the  cause  of  the  death.  The  causef  H 
death  being  proven,  he  was  not  ca  d  < 
this  subject.  Is  he  to  be  abused  fo hal 
He  had  “not  told  anybody  down >  <1 
trial.”  Well,  that  is  to  his  credit.  Ti 
is  contrary  to  their  theory.  If  the  T 


15S 


jtrpose  m  this  conversation,  he  imme- 
7  Avould  have  told  it ;  he  did  not  see 
,".ng  to  tell  of,  because  it  was  merely 
ration  of  what  she  had  said  before, 
ischarge  of  his  duty  did  not  require 
l  treated  it  as  a  casual  conversation, 
(d  not  care  about  it  until  the  District 
iiey  happened  to  learn  he  had  accom- 
t  her  from  the  station  house  to  head- 
•i  -s  ;  and  desiring  to  get  such  infor- 
ii  on  the  case  before  the  trial  as  he 
du  the  discharge  of  his  duty,  he  sent 
1m  and  enquired  of  him.  Then  for 
ii  t  time  he  stated  this  conversation, 
he  anything  in  that  for  which  to 
<ehe  witness  ?  I  think  not.  If  you 
o  will  not  credit  his  testimony.  But 
i  is  : 

Id  you  have  any  conversation  with  her 
j,  j  wn  to  headquarters  ?  A.  Yes. 

Id  she  say  anything  on  the  subject  of 
krlicide?  A.  Yes. 

Site  to  the  jury  that  conversation,  as  near 
>u|collect  it  ?  A.  Well,  I  asked  her  how 
cafe  to  shoot  Mr.  Watson.  She  said  he 
li  ed  her  and  called  her  vile  names  ;  that 
soioad  threatened  to  discharge  her  the  day 

Ii  she  say  anything  about  the  shooting  ? 
beiid  she  was  going  out  on  the  landing 
Mj  Watson  was  out  on  the  landing  ;  he 
d  If  abusive  names,  and  she  shot  him. 

■  b  she  say  anything  about  the  num- 
>f  fnes  ?  A.  I  asked  her  the  number  of 
■ ;  lie  said  only  once. 

dis  the  testimony.  All  these  state- 
is  ,re  -made  after  this  occurrence, 
d  you  want  any  further  evidence  that 
'c  an  knew  what  she  was  doing;  had 
%  and  portrayed  that  motive  in 
I'gthe  question? 

it,  jpntlemen,  after  the  long  and  elo- 
d  »pch  on  the  part  of  the  counsel  to 
‘  mi  have  listened,  I  cannot  in  con- 
Me  ty  much  more  to  you  in  this  case. 
ve  ‘  deavored,  in  the  honest  discharge 
y  uty  to  lay  before  you  its  facts. 

■  e  i  disposition,  even  had  I  the  abili- 
1  hjulge  in  eloquent  apostrophies  on 
cal  rinciples.  I  have  no  desire  to 
al  fyour  sympathies  against  the  real- 
dor  nate  young  woman.  I  shall  have 
iiirgl  my  duty  when  I  shall  have  faith- 
rei  >wed  the  facts  and  the  principles 
hie  the  prosecution  asks  conviction. 
V 


I  said  to  you  in  the  opening  that  I  saw  noth¬ 
ing  in  the  facts  which  I  then  knew  which 
warranted  me  in  reading  any  law  to  you 
except  the  law  of  justifiable  homicide,  ex¬ 
cusable  homicide,  or  murder.  I  said  to 
you  then  that  if  during  the  trial  any  facts 
or  circumstances  developed  which  made  it 
essential  that  you  should  understand  the 
other  branches  of  homicide,  they  would 
be  read  to  you  by  one  or  the  other  counsel 
and  therefore  did  not  read  to  you  what 
constituted  manslaughter.  They  made  the 
issue;  and  are  accepted.  What  does  the 
counsel  mean?  Does  he  suppose  the  prose¬ 
cution,  represented  by  the  District  Attor¬ 
ney,  came  into  this  Court  as  into  an  amphi¬ 
theatre  for  conflict  with  him?  Does  he  sup¬ 
pose  opposing  counsel  comes  here  like  two 
athletes  to  wrestle  ?  If  any  such  principle  as 
this  actuates  him  it  does  not  me.  If  it  is  pos¬ 
sible  under  the  law  that  there  is  a  reasona¬ 
ble  doubt  which  would  lessen  the  offense, 
you  know  no  such  feeling  will  prevent 
me  from  stating  it  to  the  jury.  Occupying 
the  position  I  do  I  could  not  sleep  to  night 
if  I  were  influenced  by  any  such  remark. 
Now,  gentlemen,  there  is  one  phase  of  this 
case,  which  I  don’t  believe  in;  and  if  you 
do,  it  changes  the  entire  nature  of  the 
case.  Manslaughter  in  the  third  degree  is 
the  killing  of  a  human  being  by  another, 
without  justifiable  or  excusable  cause,  in 
the  heat  of  passion,  without  an  intent  to 
kill.  If  it  be  true  that  this  woman  was  in 
sound  mind  and  memory;  and  if  it  be 
equally  true  that  she,  as  she  swears,  did 
not  intend  to  kill  Watson,  but  used -’a  dead¬ 
ly  weapon  which  resulted  in  his  death,  and 
she  did  it  under  the  heat  of  passion,  pro¬ 
duced  by  provocation  not  sufficient  to 
justify  or  excuse  her  under  the  law,  then 
she  can  be  convicted  of  manslaughter  in 
the  third  degree.  I  do  not  ask  such  a  con¬ 
viction  on  the  part  of  the  people.  I  be¬ 
lieve,  and  I  have  a  right  as  a  public  officer 
to  express  the  belief,  that  the  story  told 
by  her  is  not  credible.  If  you  think  other¬ 
wise,  however,  that  there  are  facts  in  the 
case  upon  which  you  can  conscientiously 
act,  and  ought  to  act,  it  is  not  [for  me  or 
anybody  else  to  gain  say  it.  You  are  here 


154 


to  do  substantial  justice  utidef  the  law.  If 
you  think  there  are  any  circumstances  in 
the  transaction  which  warrant  you  in  look¬ 
ing  leniently  upon  it,  it  is  not  for  me  to 
gainsay  your  judgment  in  this  respect. 
The  trial  is  between  the  prisoner  on  one 
side  and  the  people  on  the  other.  The 
counsel  have  now  no  further  voice.  You 
have  taken  an  oath,  which  is  the  chain 
which  connects  you  with  the  Throne  above. 
Then  you  will  render  a  verdict  just  and 
true,  according  to  the  testimony  in  the 
case.  When  you  shall  do  that  conscien¬ 
tiously  it  will  become  no  man  to  gainsay 
it;  and  you  will  go  to  your  homes  at  night 
after  the  tedious  trial  and  will  retire  to 
your  pillows  feeling  justified  to  yourselves 
and  it  will  become  no  man  to  question 
you. 

There  is  only  one  thing  I  ask  you  to 
consider.  If  you  establish  the  principle 
by  your  verdict  that  mere  adultery  between 
wo  persons  justifies  the  killing  of  one  by 
he  other,  if  you  establish  the  principle 
here  is  no  statute  of  limitations  to  that, 
that  it  may  run  on  to  three  long  years, 
if  you  establish  by  your  verdict  the  princi¬ 
ple  that  any  woman,  single  or  married,  liv¬ 
ing  adulterously  with  a  man  two  or  three 
years,  may,  when  she  tires  of  him,  or  from 
any  other  motive,  take  his  life,  the  re¬ 
sponsibility  will  be  with  you:  and  if  you 
can  take  that  responsibility  satisfactorily 
to  yourselves  it  is  not  for  me  to  complain 
of  you.  But,  gentlemen,  I  ask  you  to  de¬ 
cide  this  case  not  on  sympathetic  princi¬ 
ples.  It  will  not  do  to  decide  cases  in 
Courts  of  justice  on  sympathy;  it  would 
strike  a  blow  at  the  foundations  of  society. 
But  if  it  is  to  be  so  decided,  shall  all  the 


sympathy  that  swells  our  bosoms  be  ^ 
for  the  guilty?  Is  there  no  ground  o  m 
pathy  except  for  the  adulteress  a:  fa 
her  who  is  charged  with  the  murder  be 
paramour?  Is  the  innocent  widow,  th  af 
innocent  party  of  the  three  so  nearh  ite 
ested  in  this  case,  to  have  no  sympath;  it 
no  tears  to  be  shed  on  her  behalf  A 
gathers  around  her  her  little  fan  '$ 
remind  them  they  are  fatherless,  and  4 
thinks  of  that  husband  who,  whatev  ei* 
he  was,  was  a  kind  and  loving  busbil 
her,  but  is  now  in  his  untimely  aw 
Lonely  and  desolate  she  retires  aii^l 
only  to  think  and  weep  over  years  g<  >  bgi 
When  she  goes  to  church,  as  she  is 
tomed  to  do,  and  sits  down  in  tl  a* 
and  looks  at  the  minister  who  acen 
her  loneliness  and  desolation,  anciJ 
calming  and  chastening  influences  («| 
ion  come  over  her,  how  is  she  1  M 
when  she  reads  in  this  trial  that  tl  sn 
pathy  of  men  is  only  for  the  aduMB 
Her  only  relief  will  be  in  that  In 
though  it  affords  consolation  for  the  pa 
ant  adulteress,  yet  it  affords  mut  ms. 
comfort  to  the  innocent.  Is  she  ot  w 
be  thought  of  in  connection  with  tl  tM 
If  there  is  to  be  sympathy  shall  it  oti 
for  the  iunocent  widow  who  has  b  a 
raged  in  a  double  loss?  Is  there  t  be 
sympathy  for  the  daughter,  fi fleet t  ®j 
teen  years  of  age,  left  fatherless,  a  nfl 
out  her  natural  .protector.  And  tl  t  N 
other  innocent  children — what  ite  k 
their  future?  I  don’t  ask  you  to  ts» 
things  into  consideration;  but  imp 
thy  is  to  determine  this  case  I  aslrf™ 
gentlemen,  that  your  sympathy 
out  not  to  the  wicked  and  vicious  on* 


155 


CHARGE  OF  THE  COURT  TO  THE  JURY. 


n  men  of  the  Jury  : 

y  the  part  of  counsel  much  eloquent 
•rient,  great  forensic  ability  and  pro- 
■r  legal  knowledge  have  accompanied 
Lai  of  this  case  from  its  commence- 
nfco  its  close.  Counsel  in  all  things 
,'elone  their  duty  most  faithfully,  both 
te  part  of  the  defense  and  on  the 
rtf  the  prosecution.  And  yet  with  the 
ia  icense  that  accompanies  trials  of  this 
cUnd  necessarily  accompanies  them, 
dhas  come  into  this  case  and  much 
len  said  on  both  sides  that  is  not 
ftjiate  as  bearing  upon  it,  and  should 
t  ider  any  circumstances  enter  into 
■  cisideration  of  the  jury  charged  with 
itision.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Court, 
re  re,  after  the  arguments  of  the  coun¬ 
t's  been  finally  closed,  at  the  final 
nit  of  the  trial  to  call  back  the  minds 
li  jurors  to  a  calm,  dispassionate,  rea- 
;  it;  and  just  construction  of  the  case 
>n  Inch  they  are  to  decide,  and  parti¬ 
al  in  this  the  case  on  trial,  when  the 
oir  is  charged  with  the  crime  of  wil- 
n  rder.  Jurors  in  such  cases  are,  to 
ae  stent,  the  custodians  of  the  fate 
thi  accused  person.  It  is  a  question 
h  tat  person  of  life  or  death,  and  the 
'sir  is  with  the  twelve  jurors  who 
sum  to  try  the  issue  and  render 
vemct  according  to  the  evidence. 

1  re're,  because  of  this  high  responsi¬ 
ble  listing  somewhat  on  the  Court,  and 
ayirpon  the  jurors  in  criminal  cases, 
s  t  duty  of  the  Court  to  say  to  the  jury 
‘Q ;  case  is  about  to  be  committed  to 
ulnds,  to  discharge  their  minds  from 
con  derations  foreign  to  the  case,  and  to 
er  i  ictly  and  closely  into  its  particular 
rite; 

lowhat  is  this  case  ?  The  accused  is 
ced  ipon  trial,  charged  with  the  crime 
murder — the  highest  crime  known 
he  |;w.  The  fiat  of  the  Deity  is  “  thou 
it  d  ;  kiU,”  and  it  is  likewise  the  law  in 
crv  zed  communities ;  and  whoever 


transgresses  or  offends,  jeopardizes  his  or 
her  own  life.  The  circumstances  and  fea¬ 
tures  which  have  been  developed  in  this 
case  are  peculiar,  and  distinguish  it  from 
many  others  of  much  celebrity.  The  per¬ 
son  killed  was  a  man  in  the  prime  of  man¬ 
hood,  in  the  full  vigor  of  life,  engaged  in 
active  business,  mingliug  with  the  busy 
world,  having  a  home  and  a  family.  The 
accrrsed  has  all  her  life,  and  that  not  a 
very  long  one,  from  a  period  of  about 
eight  years  of  age,  contributed  by  her  own 
labor  to  her  own  support.  In  the  year 
1868  or  thereabouts,  she  entered  the  employ¬ 
ment  of  the  deceased,  and  so  remained 
with  some  interruptions  and  intervals  until 
January,  1872,  and  during  this  period  the 
outward  relations  subsisting  between  them 
•was  that  of  “  master  and  servant.”  Isay 
“outward  relations,”  because  it  is  claimed 
on  her  behalf,  that  another  and  a  more 
intimate,  a  hidden,  a  secret,  a  criminal 
relation  also  subsisted  between  them  dur¬ 
ing  almost  the  entire  period.  Under 
these  circumstances,  and  on  the  22d  of 
last  January,  iu  this  county,  the  life  of 
Watson,  the  deceased,  was  taken,  and  the 
accused  stands  at  the  bar  of  this  Court 
charged  with  being  his  murderess. 

Just  turned  her  eighteenth  year,  at  a  pe¬ 
riod  in  life  when  in  her  sex  we  always  hope 
to  find  innocence  and  simpl.city,  those 
traits  which  always  grace  girlhood  and 
budding  womanhood,  on  the  very  thresh¬ 
old  of  her  life  she  is  placed  on  trial  as  a. 
criminal,  under  a  most  grave  and  serious 
charge  ;  and  it  is  in  these  respects  I  say 
that  this  case  presents  characteristics 
which  are  not  ordinarily  found  even  in 
cases  of  great  celebrity.  I  do  not  propose 
in  this  case,  gentlemen,  to  go  over  the  facts 
or  to  compare  the  evidence,  or  to  recapitu¬ 
late  or  comment  upon  it,  save  so  far  as 
may  be  necessary  to  apply  to  it  some  fea¬ 
tures  of  law  governing  the  case  to  which 
your  attention  will  be  directed  by  myself. 
The  duty  of  reviewing  the  testimony  has 


156 


beeD  so  ably  and  fully  discharged  by  coun¬ 
sel  that  it  is  not  the  duty  of  the  Court  to 
allude  any  further  to  the  evidence  than 
may  seem  necessary  to  make  the  charge 
itself  the  better  understood.  It  is  your 
great  prerogative  and  your  duty,  if  you  so 
choose,  in  the  jury  room,  to  take  up  every 
part  of  this  testimony  piecemeal,  and  to 
dissect  and  analyze  it,  and  compare  it, 
and  to  such  consideration  at  your  hands 
the  Court  intends  to  leave  it.  With  re¬ 
spect  to  the  law  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Court 
to  say  to  you  that  all  persons  are  held  in¬ 
nocent  until  proven  guilty.  It  is  conceded 
that  all  guilty  should  escape  rather  than  that 
one  innocent  person  should  sutler.  Such  is 
the  humanity  of  the  law.  In  this  case  the 
prosecution  has  a  certain  duty  to  perform. 
It  must  establish  the  killing  of  Watson  by 
violence  as  alleged  in  the  indictment.  It 
must  show  that  the  accused  committed  the 
act  which  occasioned  his  death,  and  it 
must  adduce  from  the  facts  and  circum¬ 
stances  gathered  from  the  case  that  she  in¬ 
tended  to  kill  him  ;  the  intent  to  kill  must 
be  established  to  make  out  the  offense  in 
the  highest  degree — that  is,  the  offense  of 
wilful  murder. 

And  it  must  appear,  either  by  ordinary 
presumption  or  by  positive  proof,  that  the 
prisoner  charged  with  this  crime  was  a  re¬ 
sponsible  being  at  the  time  of  its  commis¬ 
sion.  All  these  are  elements  to  be  made 
out  before  the  party  charged  with  the 
crime  can  be  called  upon  to  enter  a 
defense. 

As  to  the  intent,  it  is  an  emotion  of  the 
mind,  and  it  is  established  by  words  or  by 
outward  acts  ;  and  a  person  is  held  in  law 
to  intend  to  do  that  which  he  does,  and  to 
intend  the  natural  consequences  of  the  act. 
Now  here,  on  this  question  of  intent  to 
kill,  provided  it  be  established  that  the 
accused  did  discharge  this  weapon  at  Wat¬ 
son,  her  intent  to  kill  rests  upon  grounds 
which  may  be  briefly  stated  as  follows  : 

First,  a  deadly  weapon  provided;  second, 
the  discharge  of  it  at  a  vital  part,  and  al¬ 
most  immediate  death  ensuing.  These 
facts  are  usually  sufficient  to  demonstrate 
that  the  intent  to  kill  accompanied  the 


act,  until  explained  away  by  the  j 
who  committed  the  act.  If  this  intei 
formed  immediately  before  the  conur 
of  the  act,  or  even  at  the  very  time 
stinking  of  the  blow,  or  the  pulling  i 
trigger,  it  is  of  as  much  force  as  if 
existed  for  a  much  longer  period. 

The  prosecution,  when  they  resti 
case,  claimed  they  had  made  out  t 
essential  elements  of  the  offense 
accused. 


And  the  Court  says  now,  as  it  sail  hti 
the  prosecution  rested,  in  responsi 
motion  on  the  part  of  the  defens  t 
there  was  at  that  time  sufficient  ev 
to  send  the  question  of  the  prisoner 
or  innocence  to  the  jury.  When  th 
cution  rested  the  defense  was  enttrei  ? 
and  here  is  introduced  the  chief  el 
the  engrossing  topic,  the  subject  of 
est  interest,  around  which  the  op 
forces  have  gathered  and  struggle 
contested  the  question  of  guilt  o  u» 
cence.  The  prisoner  is  entitled  to ; 
as  many  defenses  as  may  seem  adviifl 
herself  or  her  counsel;  and  onhei;lfl 
more  than  one  defense  is,  as  I  und  M 
it,  presented  to  the  Court.  First 
has  a  right  to  claim  that  the  offens  a 
full  extent  has  not  been  alequatei; 
lished  by  sufficient  proof,  and  tostj 
she  chooses,  on  that  ground.  If,  in 
honest  judgment,  guided  by  coiii 
and  governed  by  reason,  a  sufficie 
has  not  been  made  out  by  the  prosd 
then  you  need  not  resort  to  any  tei 
on  the  part  of  the  defense  for  her  <M 
ation.  But  you  are  to  be  goverrl*^ 
have  said — by  conscience  and  by 

The  second  proposition  in  her  h  alf  1 
“  justification,”  in  that  the  decease 
her  person,  with  an  intent  to 
indecent  assault,  and  in  an 
manner,  and  that  to  free  herse 
his  grasp  and  his  power  she  dis 
this  weapon  at  him  regardless  o: 
quences. 

And  the  third  defense  is  thf^ 


I)i«  <| 


which  the  greater  part  of  the 


been  expended,  and  the  greater  pa  oflj 
testimony  has  been  introduced, 


157 


I  jorary  or  partial  insanity.  Insanity 
in-  from  causes  -which  have  been  fully 
id  in  the  testimony,  which  are  relied 
b  the  defense,  and  which  have  been 
utively  commented  on  by  the  counsel 
i  sanity  having  direct  and  immediate 
r<  ce  to  and  connection  with  the  act 
jKs  involved  in  the  offense  charged. 
$  :ot  claimed  that  there  is  general 
a  f  in  the  case  ;  nor  is  it  necessary  to 
bill  that.  It  is  claimed  that  with 
rese  to  that  particular  act,  which  is 
rgjl  is  a  crime,  this  accused  is  ir re¬ 
ts:  le  by  reason  of  a  temporary  de- 
O'/ient  of  her  reason.  The  statute 
b  n  correctly  quoted  that  no  person 
beield  l’esponsible  for  an  offense  com- 
■c  n  an  insane  condition  ;  and  very 
ly  i  that  the  law,  because  a  person  de- 
cdif  reasonjis  already, God'knows,  suf- 
nt  punished,  without  beingsubjected 
e  isitations  of  human  punishment. 

•e  now,  gentlemen,  on  the  sixth 
this  trial.  I  count  fifteen  wit¬ 
's  s  sworn  on  the  part  of  the  people, 
tWiity-seven  on  the  part  of  the  defense : 
w  ile  case  is  about  to  be  committed 
’ii:  lands.  You  have  sworn  to  deliver 
lie  irdict  between  the  prisoner  and 
piple,  and  we  all  feel  that  with 
>  ei!  help  you  will  keep  your  oath.  It 
ie  ftty  of  the  Court  here  to  give  a 
1  i  caution.  The  case  has  excited 
f  pblic  attention,  and  comment,  both 
udyide,  is  visited  upon  it,  and  proba- 
p(  all  necessarily  connected  with  it. 
oil  part,  you  ought  to  see  to  it  that 
:•  mpathy  on  one  side  or  passion  or 
lii  on  the  other,  shall  not  influence 
re  lict.  Public  clamor  for  or  against 
’cosed  must  not,  will  not,  shall  not 
n(  your  deliberations  in  the  jury 
a>  or  shall  influence  the  Court,  I 
fs  a|tny  stage  of  the  case.  If  in  your 
lQe  there  should  be  a  verdict  of 
itti  it  is  your  duty  to  say  so;  if  of 
y,  i  is  your  duty  equally  to  say  so,  and 
be:  discharge  your  obligations,  leav- 
the  msequences  upon  those  who  have 
ked  hem  and  where  they  are  placed  by 
M>f  the  land. 

<w’  ith  respect  to  the  legal  proposi¬ 


tions.  "  I  say  you  must  be  satisfied  in  all 
things  that  the  evidence  makes  out  a  case 
of  wilful,  intentional,  premeditated  mur¬ 
der — being  murder  in  the  first  degree — 
against  this  accused  to  convict  her  of  that 
crime.  Manslaughter  in  the  third  degree 
is  defined  by  statute  to  be  the  uninten¬ 
tional  killing  of  a  human  being  where  it  is 
done  with  a  dangerous  weapon.  Where 
the  quality  of  the  crime  is  in  doubt,  I  call 
your  attention,  as  is  usual  in  such  cases, 
to  the  provision  of  the  statute,  and  say  to 
you  that  it  may  be  your  province,  in  case 
the  sanity  of  the  prisoner  is  established 
beyond  a  doubt,  to  hold  that  when  she  did 
kill  Watson,  she  did  it  without  intent  to 
encompass  his  death,  and  that  her  offense 
in  such  an  event  is  defined  by  the  statute 
as  manslaughter  in  the  third  degree.  It 
is  a  matter  entirely  and  strictly  within 
control  of  the  jury,  subject  to  the  facts 
and  the  law  in  all  things.  Of  course,  if 
tliis  shot  was  necessarily  discharged 
by  her,  according  to  her  judgment 
at  the  time,  in  defense  of  her  own 
person,  the  law  says  it  is  a  case  of 
justifiable  homicide.  If  insanity  at  the 
time  of  the  offense  be  made  out  to  your 
satisfaction,  she  must  go  free,  and  is  enti¬ 
tled  to  an  unqualified  verdict  of  acquittal. 
If  you  have  a  reasonable  doubt  of  her  guilt 
or  sanity,  she  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of 
that  doubt,  and  therefore  to  an  acquittal. 

Good  character  is  always  an  essential 
element  in  ease  of  persons  charged  with 
crime,  and  sometimes  their  entire  pre¬ 
vious  history  and  cai’eer  are  adduced  to 
establish  character,  from  which  the  jurors 
may  infer,  where  a  doubt  has  been  raised 
in  their  minds  that  a  crime  of  this  nature 
and  extent  was  impossible  to  be  contem¬ 
plated  by  the  person  charged  with  it. 
Now,  with  respect  to  the  term  “  reasonable 
doubt.  ”  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Court  to  say 
to  you,  in  that  respect,  that  a  reasonable 
doubt  is  not  a  whim,  a  conjecture,  or  a 
supposition,  but  a  reasonable  and  substan¬ 
tial  doubt,  such  as  might  be  entertained 
by  intelligent  men  ;  and  it  rests  either  on 
the  absence  of  some  necessary  link  in  the 
chain  of  evidence,  or  on  some  substantial 
fact  which  the  evidence  has  established. 


158 


My  lull  duty  requires  me  to  say  a  word 
or  two  to  you  on  the  doctrine  of  insanity. 

I  hold  a  case  here  of  considerable  note, 
known  as  the  trial  of  Samuel  M.  Andrews, 
charged  with  the  murder  of  Cornelius 
Holmes  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  in 
December,  1868.  The  defense  in  that  case 
was  temporary  insanity,  the  killing  seemed 
to  have  been  established  beyond  a  doubt. 
The  two  men  had  been  friends  for  many 
years  and  up  to  the  very  moment  of  the  of¬ 
fense.  The  offense  being  established  there 
appeared  to  be  a  lack  of  motive  for  one 
friend  killing  another.  But  it  was  dis¬ 
covered  that  the  dead  man  had  some  time 
before  made  a  wall  in  favor  of  the 
person  who  subsequently  took  his  life. 
There,  then,  was  a  motive  for  his  sudden 
taking  off  which  explained  an  otherwise 
straDge  affair.  The  case  went  to  trial  and 
was  fully  presented  on  the  question  of 
temporary  insanity.  It  was  then  shown 
that  the  person  accused  descended  from  a 
race,  several  of  whom  had  been  insane; 
and  yet  up  to  the  latter  moment  when  this 
crime  was  charged  upon  him,  he  himself 
had  given  no  symptoms  of  aberration  of 
mind.  He  was  a  man  nearly  fifty  years  of 
age;  had  lived  a  blameless  life,  and  insani¬ 
ty  io  his  case  had  never  been  supposed. 
The  two  chief  witnesses  on  the  question  of 
insanity  were  Dr.  Choate,  introduced  by 
the  prosecution,  and  Dr.  Jarvis,  introduced 
by  the  defense.  There  were  a  number  of 
others;  but  they  were  the  chief  witnesses. 
They  held  opposing  views,  Dr.  Choate  had 
grave  doubt,  indeed  he  did  not  believe  in 
the  theory  of  temporary  insanity;  Dr.  Jar¬ 
vis,  on  the  contrary,  maintained  that  it 
was  a  well  known  feature  developed  by 
scientific  investigation  in  the  state  of  the 
human  mind.  Dr.  Choate  is  asked  to 
make  a  general  statement  on  the  subject. 
He  says  he  has  never  known  a  case  of  in¬ 
sanity  originating  and  terminating  in  a 
single  act  of  violence  and  does  not  believe 
such  a  case  exists.  He  does,  however,  go 
on  to  state  that  as  to  the  material  circum¬ 
stances  attending  a  case  of  homicide,  mo¬ 
tive  is  the  important  consideration,  and 
the  fact  whether  there  was  a  motive  pres¬ 
ent  or  not;  that  motive  alone  in  a  large 


majority  of  cases  indicates  insanity  <  « 
ty.  But  by  that,  gentlemen,  yon  ] 
course  understand  adequate  i  i 
whether  real  or  whether  it  exists 
imagination.  He  says — “the  insane  1 
motive,  or  act  from  a  false  motive  <  a 
one  which  does  not  exist.”  He  tit  | 
on  to  indicate  how  the  act  of  an  * 
person  could  be  distinguished  from  a 
of  a  sane  person.  He  specifies  the 
ing  as  indicative  of  insanity  even  it 
impulsive  insanity.  In  addition  to  ut 
motive  or  false  motive  he  specifies  tl  t| 
and  place.  He  says:  “  The  iusane  >t 
seek  secrecy  in  the  commission  o:  rii 
as  those  who  are  in  posession  of  tkei  aa 
ties.  ”  He  says  that  ‘  ‘  subsequent  <  idt 
of  the  prisoner  where  there  is  no  <  ice 
ment  and  no  attempts  at  conceahn  t« 
no  flight,  are  indicative  of  insanity  1 
says:  “The  tenor  of  the  previom iff 
the  person  charged  with  the  offens  »bi 
that  offense  is  contrary  to  the  who  tq 
of  that  life  in  an  indication  of  in  litj 
and  as  he  doubts  the  doctrine  o  nan 
transiloria  and  yet  he  gives  these  i  iod 
cations  that  may  exist  in  insanity.* 
of  a  prisoner  charged  with  crime. 

Now,  on  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Jaisw 
tended  in  testifying  as  an  experl  "tl 
scientific  investigation  by  learne  me 
particularly  in  the  Old  World,  have  veki 
ed  a  phase  not  before  believed  ehf 
known  as  mania  transitoria  or  tepfl^ 
insanity.”  He  says:  “  Of  course 
periods  of  incubation.  It  does  not  mmi 
in  a  moment  and  then  cease  at  t !  <* 
mission  of  the  act;”  and  the  insaty* 
be  determined  by  some  indicia  iihe| 
mediately  previous  conduct  of  tl  F* 
who  is  its  subject  or  object.  Th  is  ( 
chief  defense  in  the  case  and  in 
to  it  I  shall  not  detain  you  long.  1 
however,  to  give  you  instructio 
may  lead  to  an  intelligent  cone. 'ion 
your  minds,  because  some  of  tl 
men  have  had  their  doubts,  and  t  h 1 
to  be  expected  that  those  who  ® 
made  the  subject  a  study  can  h 
than  those  who  have.  I  refer  tosoeoff 
indicia  laid  down  by  Dr.  Jarvis  ivlflfl 
temporary  insanity.  He  quotepwl 


159 


si  many  of  them  have  been  named 
:cnsel  for  the  defense.  Of  mania 
■ina,  he  says: 

in  form  of  mental  disorder  which  sud- 
r  pears  iu  persons  previously  sound  or 
a  iosed  to  be  insane  in  mind.  It  has  a 
(ration  and  suddenly  disappears.  He 
;  is  not  a  new  doctrine,  but  has  been 
it  q  France  and  G  rmany  for  many 
I  the  managers  of  the  insane  and  by 
rsm  thece  topics.  It  is  recognized  by 
>res  on  the  subject  in  Great  Britain;  is 
t  by  the  courts  in  Europe  in  the  man- 
?tand  disposition  of  persons  committing 
vlh  would  otherwise  have  been  consid¬ 
ers,  and  who  otherwise  would  have 
limed  to  death  on  the  scaffold. 

w'hat  does  he  state  as  indicia,  from 
a  .e  juror,  or  court,  or  observer  can 
dto  a  conscientious  conclusion  as 
e  ate  of  mind  of  the  person  charged 
tl  crime  at  the  time  of  its  commis- 
?  le  says: 

incjan  outbreak  in  a  person  accustomed 
ml,  quiet  life,  a  sudden  outbreak  of 
cration,  calmness  after  the  act,  ab- 
c  adequate  motive,  no  subsequent  re- 
3,  b  consciousness  or.  recollection  of 
>ff<93e,  some  extraordinarily  disturbing 

■  me  functional  disturbance,  being 
oress  iuternal  in  its  features,  and  he- 
rj  redisposition. 

w.jentlemen,  these  are  two  authori- 
lu  will  see  that  in  many  things 
a£3e  as  to  the  indications  which  are 
■te  to  be  found,  and  which,  when 
d,  ould  be  relied  on  in  determining 
me  ion  of  sanity  or  insanity  by  a  per- 
chiged  with  crime.  I  do  not  feel 
d  necessary  to  go  farther  in  that 

■  h  :  the  case,  although  I  shall  state 
i  me  other  matters  briefly. 

hoi  here  a  compilation  of  cases  in 
h  e  has  been  suddenly  taken — of 
lamjby  the  wife,  of  wife  by  the  hus- 
-  <  parent  by  child — noted  cases 
'g  ie  past  twenty  years ;  some  of 
1  ii  France,  some  of  them  in  Ger- 
y.  a  l  in  other  parts  of  the  Old  World, 
e  n  motive  could  be  ascribed  for  the 
and  'here  the  person,  because  of  the 
dty  f  the  offense,  would  undoubtedly 
sa  red  death  unless  the  doctors  of 
nini  had  been  listened  to  by  the  court 
jur<i,  and  their  views  of  the  subject 
hee  allowed  to  prevail.  And  yet, 
’m' ,  it  is  a  defense  that  ought  to  be 

ni 

■ 


reasonably  well  established.  It  is  a  de¬ 
fense  that  is  entitled  to  the  same  considera¬ 
tion  at  your  hands  as  any  other  defense. 
The  defense  of  irresponsibility  arising 
from  insanity  is  neither  to  be  viewed  with 
suspicion,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  treated 
with  great  favor.  It  is  simply  to  be  placed 
on  a  footing  with  other  defenses.  If  it  be 
reasonably  made  out  when  set  up  as  an  af¬ 
firmative  defense,  no  doubts  or  hesitations 
which  others  may  entertain  or  give  expres¬ 
sion  to  should  deter  the  jurors  from  being 
governed  by  such  conclusions.  A  learned 
judge  of  this  State — (I  refer  to  Judge  Ed¬ 
monds)  has  laid  down  the  following  in  one 
of  his  writings,  as  the  condition  of  a  sane 
person.  .  He  says  : 

It  is  ODe  whose  senses  bear  truthful  evi¬ 
dence,  whose  understanding  is  capable  of  re¬ 
ceiving  that  evidence  ;  whose  reason  can  draw- 
proper  conclusions  from  the  truthful  evidence 
thus  received  ;  whose  will  can  guide  the 
thoughts  thus  obtained  ;  wiiose  moral  sense  can 
tell  the  right  and  the  wrong  growing  out  oi 
that  thought;  and,  an  indispensable  condition, 
one  whoso  acts  can,  at  his  own  will  and  pleas¬ 
ure,  he  in  conformity  and  harmony  with  the  ac¬ 
tion  of  ail  these  qualities.  All  these  unite  in 
making  up  sanity,  says  the  learued  Judge. 
The  absence  of  any  one  of  these  is  insanity. 

And  he  arrived  at  these  conclusions  in 
considering  a  case  known  as  the  Kleim  case. 
The  defense  was  insanity  ;  yet  the  man 
was  conscious  and  knew  that  what  he  did 
was  wrong.  He  had  driven  a  woman  and 
children  into  a  hut  and  fastened  them  in, 
and  set  fire  to  the  hut,  and  whilst  the  fire 
was  raging  and  they  were  struggling  to 
escape,  he  thrust  the  woman  back.  There 
was  no  pretence  but  that  the  man  knew 
all  the  time  what  he  was  doing  ;  and  yet 
it  was  discovered  or  established  in  that 
case  that  during  all  that  time,  with  all  that 
consciousness,  he  was  not  a  responsible 
being.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  do  not  illus¬ 
trate  this  doctrine  to  you  for  the  puipose 
of  affecting  your  minds.  You  are  to  apply 
the  law  to  this  case  in  your  own  judgment. 

The  Court  will  not  seek  to  swerve  your 
judgment  either  for  or  against  the  prisoner 
or  prosecution,  except  only  where  it  seems 
to  be  the  conscientious  duty  of  the  Court. 

The  general  definition  of  insanity,-  as 
we  have  established  it,  is  a  disease  of  the 
brain — a  dethronement  of  reason,  com- 


160 


plete,  or  partial,  and  it  may  be  permanent 
or  temporary.  The  remarks  of  Justice 
Hogeboom  may  have  some  application  to 
a  case  like  this.  They  were  contained  in 
his  charge  to  the  jury  on  the  celebrated 
Cole  trial.  His  great  experience,  long  ser¬ 
vices  on  the  bench,  and  signal  ability,  en¬ 
title  him  always  to  be  quoted  as  authority. 
He  says  that 

All  persons  have]  not]  the  same  emotional 
power,  or  characteristics.  The  same  person  is 
not  twice  in  the  same  condition  for  the  calm, 
equable  exercise  of  the  mental  powers.  The 
strength  and  vigor  of  the  faculties  may  be 
temporarily  or  permanently  impaired  by  sick¬ 
ness  or  bodily  ailment,  or  exciting  causes  cal¬ 
culated  to  disturb  equanimity  ;  yet,  it  able  to 
judge  of  the  moral  qualities  of  the  particular 
act  for  which  he  is  arraigned,  so  as  to  distin¬ 
guish  between  right  and  wrong,  the  prisoner  ar¬ 
raigned  is  legally  and  morally  responsible  to 
the  laws  of  the  land  for  his  conduct,  and  must 
abide  by  their  mandate. 

If  the  person  charged  with  the  homicide 
was  one  whose  reason  was  dethroned  per¬ 
manently  or  temporarily,  no  matter  from 
what  cause,  he  is  not  amenable  to,  nor  the 
subject  of  punishment.  Now  with  respect 
to  the  burden  of  proof.  There  may  be 
different  views  entertained  by  counsel  as 
to  who  is  to  make  out  sanity  or  insanity. 
I  have  said  the  prosecution  is  bound  to 
make  out  a  charge  of  crime  against  a  re¬ 
sponsible  being,  and  sanity  may  be  gathered 
from  the  circumstances  of  the  case  wnthout 
affirmative  proof.  But  where  the  defense 
of  insanity  is  set  up,  the  killing  is  admitted, 
and  it  is  claimed  that  there  is  no  crime 
because  the  person  charged  is  irresponsible 
because  of  loss  of  reason,  the  question 
as  to  whom  the  burden  of  proof  is  upon  is 
important,  and  I  may  say  to  you  that  if,  at 
any  stage  of  this  case  there  be  any  doubt 
of  the  sanity  of  the  prisoner  she  cannot  be 
convicted.  When  the  prisoner  undertakes 
to  make  out  a  case  of  insanity  affirma¬ 
tively,  or  her  counsel  on  her  part,  she 
should  establish  it  to  your  satisfaction  by 
preponderance  of  proof. 

Now,  gentlemen,  a  few  more  remarks, 
and  my  duty  will  have  been  discharged. 
As  before  said,  the  case  has  excited  public 
attention.  Sympathy  is  misplaced  in  the 
jury-box;  it  has  no  place  there.  But  the 
sword  of  justice  is  the  weapon  which  is 


placed  in  your  hands.  By  and  by 
be  expected  you  will  come  into  Cou 
clerk  will  ask  you  if  you  have  agn 
your  verdict,  and  if  you  have  so  i 
then  will  come  the  final  moment  wl 
officers  of  justice  and  law,  that 
w  hich  has  been  placed  in  your  hand 
fall  either  heavily  or  lightly  upo 
prisoner,  or  shall  be  turned  entire! 
from  her.  And  whatever  it  may 
pealing  to  your  consciences  and  : 
your  duties  to  yourselves  as  jurors 
all  others,  do  justice  in  all  tiling 
whatever  may  be  the  verdict,  mi 
defend  the  right! 

Mr.  MOBBIS. — Did  I  understaci 
Honor  to  charge  that  if  the  jury  .1 
doubt  as  to  the  sanity  of  the  prise  r 
is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  that  doi  ;i 
did  not  understand  your  Honor  asn 
alluded  to  that  in  connection  wj 
medical  testimony  in  the  case  flj 
opinions  of  Drs.  Choate  and  Jam 
The  COUBT. — I  have  explain  t 
all  to  the  jury.  Those  men  are  pi 
and  have  made  scientific  invest!  tk 
and  their  opinions  are  to  have  wei  t. 
how  much  weight  is  for  those  tffk 
the  opinions  are  addressed  to  de  n 
The  COUBT  to  the  District  Att  Jlj 
Mr.  Britton,  have_I  covered  the  gr  ni 
your  request? 

Mr.  BBITTON. — Your  Honor  if 
ered  the  ground,  although  I  do  r.  ag 
with  your  Honor  in  all  of  the  cl|gu 
understood  your  Honor  to  charge  iatj 
burden  of  proof  was  on  the  pri&feM 
ting  updnsanity,  by  preponderati;  H 
mony.  I  now  understand  you  t«?l 
prosecution  are  to-prove  sanity  be  id 11 
sonable  doubt. 

The  COUBT.  —  It  seems  to  «<! 
lished  by  the  authorities  I  have 
The  jury  here  retired  at  about  alf-flj 
two,  p.  M. 

Exceptiou  by  Mr.  Morris,  eoi««M 
the  defense,  to  that  portion  of  t  cbl 
in  reference  to  the  Andrews  case 
The  jury  having  sent  to  tlnlo®l 
message  stating  that  they  desir  fa® 
instruction,  they  were  brought  i 0 


161 


.•out  half-past  ten,  p.  m.,  when  the 
■sling  judge  said: 

T:  jurors  have  sent  to  the  Court  a 
list  with  respect  to  instructions  upon 
atute  of  the  State  as  to  the  offenses 
lirder  in  the  first  degree,  manslaughter 
i  third  degree,  and  justifiable  homi- 
i.  Those  provisions  of  the  law  have 
ntated  during  the  course  of  the  trial 
v  ccurately;  but  of  course  it  cannot 
sected  the  jurors  can  retain  in  their 
u cl  all  that  is  said;  therefore  their  re¬ 
st  vill  be  acceded  to.  I  read  to  you 
st;ute  in  its  very  words: 

ie  killing  of  a  human  being,  without 
iPy  of  law,  by  poison,  shooting,  stab- 
g,  '  in  any  other  means  or  any  other 
■•me  is  either  murder  in  the  first  degree, 
!e  in  the  second  degree,  manslaughter  or 
itiae  homicide,  according  to  the  facts  and 
"Minces  of  each  case. 

Hsilhng,  unless  it  be  manslaughter  or 
;itia|3  or  excusable  homicide,  as  hereinafter 
vide  shall  be  murder  in  the  first  degree  in 
"hying  cases;  firstly — 

■  owhe  statute  defines  the  first  degree 
ntujsg: 

leiperpetrated  from  premeditated  design 
iecthe  death  of  the  person  killed,  or  of 
u  m  being;  second,  Vhen  perpetrated 
n  t  imminently  dangerous  to  others, 
n;i  depraved  mind  regardless  of  human 
dtlagh  without  any  premeditated  design 
rct'ie  death  of  any  particular  individual; 

1  sen  perpetrated  in  committing  the 
oirson  in  the  first  degree. 

■  1:  ble  or  excusable  homicide  is 
7  the  statute  in  the  following 

!  Is  I 

k’ing  of  one  human  being  by  the  act, 
"nit,  or  omission  of  another,  in  case 
k  filing  shall  not  be  murder,  is  either 

I  Jl  or  excusable  homicide  or  man- 
’  -r  Such  homicide  is  justifiable  when 
ittaby  a  public  officer,  &c. 

emsable  and  justifiable  homicide 
he  defined  : 

n  mmitted  by  any  person  in  either  of 
. ;g  cases :  When  resisting  any  attempt 
Me  such  person  or  commit  any  felony 
nmir  her,  or  in  or  upon  any  dwelliug- 
iu  Inch  such  person  shall  be  :  when 

II  c'n  bwful  delense  of  such  person,  or 
oner  husband,  wife,  parent,  child, 

•  msress,  or  servant. 

y  °t  will  recollect  these  words  were 
jirf:  y  c lnsel  to  you: 

a  tjre  shall  be  reasonable  ground  to 

r 


apprehend  a  design  to  commit  a  felony  or  do 
some  great  personal  injury,  and  there  shall  be 
imminent  danger  of  such  design  being  accom¬ 
plished,  the  killing  is  justifiable  homicide. 

Now  come  to  excusable  homicide  as 
defined  by  statute: 

Such  homicide  is  excusable  when  committed 
by  accident  or  misfortune  in  the  heat  of  passion, 
upon  any  sudden  and  sufficient  provocation  or 
upon  any  sudden  combat,  without  any  undue 
advantage  being  taken  and  without  any  dan¬ 
gerous  weapon  being  used,  and  when  not  done 
in  a  cruel  or  unusual  manner. 

I  read  further  the  statute: 

Whenever  it  shall  appear  to  the  jury  on  the 
trial  of  any  person  indicted  for  murder  or  man¬ 
slaughter  that  the  alleged  homicide  was  com¬ 
mitted  under  circumstances  or  in  any  case 
whereby  such  homicide  was  justifiable  or  ex¬ 
cusable,  the  jury  shall  render  a  general  verdict 
of  not  guilty. 

The  Court  also  again  read  the  statute 
defining  the  third  degree  of  manslaughter. 
I  have  now  stated  the  provisions  of  the  law 
on  which  you  sought  further  instructions. 
If  you  have  any  further  suggestions  to 
make  the  Court  will  hear  them  with 
pleasure. 

By  request  of  a  Juror  the  Court  read 
again  the  statute  governing  excusable 
homicide. 

A  Juror  requested  to  take  the  statutes 
to  the  jury  room,  with  which  the  Court 
comp.ied,  marking  the  passages  it  had 
read,  aud  to  which  counsel  for  the  defense 
took  exception. 

The  jury  then  retired  for  the  second 
time. 

The  jury  were  again  brought  into  Court 
at  about  twelve  o’clock,  and  stated  that 
there  was  no  possibility  of  their  agree¬ 
ment,  when  they  were  again  sent  out  by 
the  Court  with  a  request  that  they  should 
endeavor  to  agree.  Then  they  were,  at 
about  seven  o’clock  on  the  following 
morning,  the  third  time  brought  into 
Court,  when,  upon  the  foreman  stating 
there  was  no  possibility  of  an  agreement, 
they  were  discharged  from  the  further 
consideration  of  the  case. 

The  jury  were  understood  to  have  stood 
from>  the  time  they  retired  to  the  close, 
ten  for  acquittal  and  two  for  manslaughter 
in  the  third  degree,  the  said  two  being 
J urors  Allen  and  Tapscott. 


